Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: On Monday, I officially opened the Constituency Garden of Remembrance in New Palace Yard. I thank those of you who have already planted Remembrance tributes. For those who have not yet done so, you, or a member of your team, are welcome to plant a Remembrance tribute before 4 pm on Thursday. At 1 pm today there will be a wreath-laying service at the Recording Angel Memorial under the stained-glass window at the St Stephen’s Entrance end of Westminster Hall. This is the main memorial to Members and staff of both Houses, including police officers, who died in both world wars. All are welcome to attend.
I also draw to the House’s attention the retirement of Peter Barratt, who served the House of Commons for more than 32 years, including 10 years as the Speaker’s Assistant Secretary and eight years as the Speaker’s Secretary. His commitment, loyalty and professionalism will be missed, and I would like to thank him personally for everything he did during his time here. I am sure that the whole House will agree with me when I say that we wish him all the very best for the future. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Pakistan: Evacuation of Afghans

Alison Thewliss: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the evacuation of Afghans from Pakistan.

Johnny Mercer: I thank the hon. Lady for her question.
The Government have reacted decisively and swiftly to relocate people to safety in the United Kingdom following the collapse of Afghanistan the year before last. The UK Government remain committed to relocating eligible Afghans and their families under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, and we will continue to honour that promise. The Government’s policy, rightly, was to ensure that eligible Afghan families had secured accommodation in the UK before travel was facilitated for their relocation. We wanted to give them the best possible start to their new lives, to provide the best value for money for the taxpayer, and to ensure Afghans were integrated into UK society in the best manner available.
However, developments in the region have impacted our security assessments and previous assumptions. That has led to the Government’s removing the need for settled accommodation for individuals eligible under ARAP prior to relocation to the United Kingdom. The safety and security of ARAP-eligible Afghans has always been of paramount importance and we make no apology at all for changing the policy to react to the changing context.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence continue to work to ensure that eligible individuals under the ARAP and the ACR scheme are supported in Pakistan. The safety and security of ARAP and ACRS-eligible Afghans is paramount in our minds. The MOD continues to monitor the security assessments in that country, but following this cross-Government decision the Prime Minister has asked me to co-ordinate across Government to support the MOD in developing a new relocations plan for ARAP-eligible persons. As Members know, previously the policy was that only those who had secured accommodation in the United Kingdom would travel to the United Kingdom. We are changing that policy as a result of changing conditions on the ground.
The MOD has worked hard to stand up a total of more than 700 service family accommodations for mixed purposes, or transitory and settled accommodation. I pay tribute to the Minister for Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), for his work on that. Our new plans will see approximately 2,800 ARAP-entitled personnel moved from Pakistan to the United Kingdom by the end of December 2023. Entitled personnel may move straight into settled accommodation on the MOD. Where service family accommodation is unavailable, families will move into transitional accommodation as a first step. Where SFA is not suited to the needs of ARAP-entitled personnel, alternative accommodation will be procured.
This Prime Minister and this Government are determined to see through our commitments to those who served with the UK forces in Afghanistan. I commend this statement to the House.

Alison Thewliss: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
I am afraid that the Minister’s answer gives no reassurance whatsoever to constituents who have contacted me in a state of extreme panic over the last few weeks. Members have had no information on what is currently happening. It has been clear for some time that Pakistan aims to expel Afghans, who went there for safety, back to Afghanistan. I have been trying to get clarity on how many people there are in Pakistan to whom we have a duty and an obligation, and who are waiting for the UK Government simply to process their paperwork so that they can leave and come to their families here in the UK. I have not had those answers from the Minister.
One constituent contacted me whose sister and her five children have been threatened with imprisonment in Pakistan if they do not leave. Her other family members—her parents, her brother and her cousin—have been returned to Afghanistan, and she cannot contact them. She does not know where they are or what has happened to them. Given that they fled from the Taliban in the first place, she is terrified for them. She has been given very unclear advice by UK officials in Pakistan on what exactly they are entitled to and whether they will be able to get on a flight at all.
Another constituent, a gentleman, contacted me on 25 October after seeing the news that there will be charter flights from Pakistan carrying Afghans who have been processed. He has been trying to get answers on the status of his family, including whether they have a valid application, whether they can get on a plane and whether they can come to safety with him. He was stuck there with his family at the fall of Afghanistan, and he is extremely distressed about the situation. Again, I have been asking questions of various Departments and have had no answers whatsoever. What advice should I give to my constituent?
There have been no updates to MPs, despite there being reports in the news of charter flights and of people coming. We have also heard on the news that people in Islamabad—people who are entitled—have been warned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to hide indoors. The British high commission has apparently warned people in hotels in Islamabad not to go outside due to the risk of arrest and deportation, so who is eligible for these charter flight? Is it people on the ARAP and ACRS schemes, people with valid family reunion paperwork or people who are still waiting for their paperwork to be done? We do not know, and I have families in my constituency with four of five members who have been processed and one who has been left behind. Can the Minister tell us exactly how many people in Pakistan are waiting for the UK Government to process their paperwork so that they can finally come to safety? We have a duty to these Afghans, and we are failing them yet again.

Johnny Mercer: I must be completely clear to the House that this is not an issue of delayed paperwork. Afghanistan collapsed, and the UK conducted Operation Pitting to retrieve Afghans from Kabul and bring them to the UK. They went into hotel accommodation because we did not have enough housing. That was the right thing to do at the time.
Since then, it has become clear that it is entirely unsuitable for these families to be in hotel accommodation for long periods of time. They were therefore held in  Pakistan, and rightly so. The situation in Pakistan has now changed, and we will now accelerate the process and get them into SFA accommodation in the UK so that we meet our duties.
I do not want to see anybody detained or deported from Pakistan if they are entitled to be in the United Kingdom, and I will work to achieve that outcome. I caution against spreading rumours of things that I am not seeing on the ground. It is an extremely challenging environment but, ultimately, we have a commitment to these people and I am determined to see it through.
On the Afghan population in hotels, I have heard the same questions, demands and allegations that we would not be successful before, but we were. I hear the hon. Lady’s questions, but the situation has changed. We have now changed our response, and we will relocate these people back to the United Kingdom.

Tim Loughton: It is reassuring to hear that this is not a paperwork issue, because it has now been more than two years since the fateful airlift. It was also particularly problematic to find accommodation for Afghan families because they tended to be large families and the accommodation was not available.
I am more worried about the change of policy in Pakistan and the influences on and within the Pakistani Government. What conversations are Ministers having with the Pakistani Government about the aid we pay to Pakistan, some of which is to cover the many Afghan refugees who fled into Pakistan, to keep them safe and out of danger until we can take those to whom we have a duty? Surely that should be a subject of conversations with the Pakistani Government.

Johnny Mercer: My hon. Friend is right that those conversations are paramount in our mind, given the shift in policy from the Pakistani Government towards Afghans. We are driving through protection for those to whom we have a duty, where they have been approved to come to the UK. We must ensure that we continue our existing agreements with Pakistan, and the Foreign Office is working hard to do that. Now that we have an accelerated plan, I hope that those in Pakistan who are eligible to be in the UK are protected from any of those policies, that we look after them and that we bring them back to the UK, as has been our promise from the start.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Kinnock: We owe many Afghans a debt of gratitude for supporting British aims in Afghanistan. In the summer and autumn of 2021, the UK Government rightly promised to honour that debt by offering those Afghans resettlement in the UK. However, the Government’s Operation Warm Welcome fast became “Operation Cold Shoulder”. Of those Afghans who made it to Britain, 8,000 were crammed into hotels over a two-year period. They were then evicted, without consultation with local authorities, leaving many Afghan families facing homelessness this winter.
Worse, the Prime Minister last November personally gave instructions to Ministers that no more flights should be chartered from Pakistan to bring Afghans who have a right to resettlement here to the UK, despite more than 3,000 Afghan refugees being stuck in hotels in Pakistan, when the British Government had promised those very individuals refuge in the UK through the ARAP and ACRS.
Keeping those loyal-to-Britain Afghans in limbo was shameful enough, but even more disgracefully the Prime Minister changed tack only when the Pakistani Government started threatening to send those loyal-to-Britain Afghans back to Afghanistan to meet their fate at the hands of the Taliban. In short, the Government of Pakistan have strong-armed our weak Prime Minister into delivering something that it was our duty as a country to deliver in the first place. That is a truly shameful and humiliating state of affairs.
What we now need to know from the Minister is: how many flights has he chartered? When will they be running from and until? What assurance has he received from the Pakistani Government that they will extend the deadline for Afghans who are to be expelled back into Afghanistan until after all the UK flights have been completed? Are the Government aware of any cases of Afghans eligible under ARAP or ACRS who have been forcibly returned to Afghanistan from Pakistan? If so, what steps are the Government taking to bring those people to safety as a matter of urgency? Finally, what progress has he made on clearing the record high asylum backlog and securing accommodation for these Afghans, whom we desperately need to get out of Pakistan as rapidly and urgently as possible?

Johnny Mercer: It is hard to take the hon. Gentleman seriously when he comes out with statements that are demonstrably untrue; I know that he would not want to mislead the House, but he mentions engaging local authorities and I literally drove round engaging them. As he well knows, this stuff is not correct. Having served in Afghanistan and, during the summer, having driven round every hotel to visit Afghans personally to ensure that none of them slept homeless and that we saw through our duty, I will take no lessons from anybody about how we feel towards this Afghan cohort. Clearly, I will not go into the details of which flights are taking off when.
This Prime Minister and this Government are clear that as the situation has changed we are seeking to get guarantees from the Pakistan Government that those entitled to be here will not be deported from that country. If that does happen, the hon. Gentleman will be able to recall me to this House and I will have failed, but that is not going to happen. This is much like my promise on homelessness; he spent the entire summer saying that something would come to fruition but, again, it never did. On this side of the House we have to govern in the real space, where we deal with operational decisions on a daily basis; we cannot whip ourselves into a lather to try to score points off some of the poorest people in the world. We are determined to see through our commitments to the people of Afghanistan and I look forward to his working with me in that pursuit.

Vicky Ford: The situation with Pakistan expelling more than 1.5 million Afghan people from its borders is deeply worrying. I am glad that the Veterans Minister is here today and is going to focus on the very small number of people who may be entitled to come to the UK—it will be just a few thousand. Many hundreds of thousands face the threat of needing to go back into Afghanistan, into the hands of the Taliban, where the economy is in a dreadful position and the country is reeling from the earthquake. These people  fear for their lives. What representations are the Foreign Office and our allies making to the Pakistan Government to ask them to think again? What support are we giving to those stuck in a humanitarian crisis on the border?

Johnny Mercer: I will be honest with my hon. right hon. Friend that there are clear distinctions in my role to deal with those who were in Pakistan who are entitled to be in the United Kingdom. Wider Pakistan engagement is a job for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which is busily engaged in that. My priority is to ensure that those who are entitled to be in the UK—those who have been approved to come to the United Kingdom—are not subject to wider Pakistan policy in Afghanistan, but that wider policy is being influenced by the Foreign Office, which is working on that every day. The situation has changed and we are reconfiguring ourselves to deal with that, to ensure that we honour our promises to people.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Diana R. Johnson: Although I welcome the decision, may I say to the Minister that it would have been much better to tell the House about it in a statement rather than an urgent question? We all know the huge pressures on accommodation in the United Kingdom and on local councils, so can the Minister say what engagement has taken place with local councils? What does “transitional accommodation” mean and how does it fit with the Home Office policy of not using hotels?

Johnny Mercer: The policy of not using hotels is absolutely right and remains. In the summer, there was a huge effort to try to remove that barrier to settling into the United Kingdom and the policy remains. However, in extremis, that will not be a barrier to people coming to the UK where they are at risk of deportation. We are going to keep those people safe. As we speak, we are working up our policy on how to ensure that we integrate this cohort, much as we did in the summer. Discussions with different Departments are ongoing. When we have agreed the policy, I will come to the House to share it with everybody. I hope it will be along similar lines to previous policy, but it requires collective agreement. We will work hard and go around the houses to ensure that the Afghan families who are in Pakistan but entitled to be here are given every opportunity to settle in the UK. We have a good record on this and I am determined to keep that going.

Kevin Foster: As the Minister will know, it was my pleasure to work on the removals around Operation Pitting with colleagues from the Ministry of Defence and the FCDO. I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken to finally move many of those people out of hotels. It is no secret that, back in late 2021, I expressed concerns about just putting people into hotels and hoping offers of accommodation would come forward. Anyone with any knowledge of housing supply knew that the size of the families involved meant that would take some time, so I congratulate him on what he did this summer. Will he reassure me that we are thinking through what would be suitable family accommodation for the people we are bringing into this  country, and that we will not just be sticking people in hotels intended for businessmen to stay in for a couple of nights rather than for families to live in for months? What type of accommodation does he have in mind for this cohort?

Johnny Mercer: We will divide up the cohort. Some of the families are exceptionally large and not what we are used to in this country. To deal with that, the funding was designed specifically so that we could do really pioneering work, such as knocking through adjoining properties to create properties big enough for Afghan families. There is a challenge with large Afghan families, but they are not the majority of the cohort. We can accommodate the majority of the cohort in service family accommodation, but where we cannot do that I am hoping to design schemes that will allow us to use funding in a flexible manner, to ensure that these people are accommodated correctly, in line with the promises we have made to the people of Afghanistan.

John Martin McDonnell: There are still outstanding issues with regard to the processing of Afghan cases here and I want to use this occasion to make a special plea to the Minister. I have a constituent who is a former senator in Afghanistan. The processing of his case is still being delayed, partly because of some problems about location that we have tried to deal with. I met him this week and I think he now has serious mental health problems as a result of the stress he is under. I will write again to the Minister and I would welcome his personal attention on this case.

Johnny Mercer: I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to all hon. Members who have personal cases to email me as I am happy to take them over. I have been brought in very recently and I will do what I can to get answers in those cases. A lot of cases are not simple—they are not black and white. As everybody across the House knows, I will always be honest about the challenges and we will do everything that we can to look after these people.

Mark Logan: In the interests of impartiality, I will quote from The Guardian, which puts the figure of Afghans currently stranded in UK-funded hotels in Islamabad at 3,000. Indeed, according to reports, those hotels have been raided by Pakistani authorities. What assessment does the Minister make of that figure and of what has been happening? Furthermore, what discussions has he been having with our high commissioner in Pakistan and his opposite number in the Pakistani Government?

Johnny Mercer: This is a cross-Government effort, so people from the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are in contact with the high commissioner in Pakistan every day. We are well aware of this challenge. There are two separate issues here: one is the wider Pakistani policy towards Afghans, which is not part of my work in this space; and the other is that being applied to those who are entitled to be in the UK and have been pre-approved to be in the UK. It is the latter that I am concerned about. We are determined to get assurances on them and we will keep working until we do. I have already made a  commitment that if a single one of them is deported back whence they came, I will have failed, but we will make sure that does not happen.

Wendy Chamberlain: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on securing this urgent question, particularly as it has given us some clarity today. The Minister has talked about accommodation. What I am hearing from my country contacts through the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls is that the focus seems to be on families, and that only families are being evacuated. That means that single women, many of whom have worked in politics and teaching, and those from the LGBT+ community are feeling particularly vulnerable, and they are most at risk of reprisals if they are deported back to Afghanistan. Can the Minister clarify what is happening for those single applicants?

Johnny Mercer: There is no de-prioritising of single applicants. Often they are easier to reintegrate and to accommodate in the United Kingdom because they are not a wider family. There are lots of stories going around the people in this cohort because they are very scared and vulnerable. Obviously, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this with me, but that is not something that I have seen. None the less, I will go back and look for it.

Paul Bristow: I chair the all-party parliamentary group for Hazaras and, since the Taliban took over, Hazaras in particular face increasing risk of targeted killings, discrimination and persecution. What specifically are the UK Government doing to help the Hazaras stranded in Afghanistan so that they can resettle in a third country, or indeed in the UK, and start a better life?

Johnny Mercer: I completely recognise my hon. Friend’s passion in this space, but I have to be disciplined about what is in my remit and what is not. That is a question for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and I know that it is engaged on that issue. The Foreign Secretary will have heard his question today. If not, I will make sure that he has seen those remarks and that my hon. Friend gets an answer.

John Cryer: I am assuming from what the Minister is saying that, since this egregious change in policy, he and his colleagues in Government are having regular discussions with the Government in Pakistan. During those discussions, have he and others sought any assurances that people in Pakistan who have live applications to come to Britain will not be deported back to Afghanistan?

Johnny Mercer: The entire strategic objective that we are trying to achieve is to make sure that those who are entitled to be in the UK, who have served with UK forces, who are part of the ACRS pathway and who are part of the cohort that we are talking about are not deported back to Afghanistan. We are working night and day to get those assurances. I am determined that we will get them and that we will look after those people properly.

Anthony Mangnall: I welcome the Minister’s comments and the work that he has done on this topic over the past few years, but I am trying to  understand the resources that he has available to him. It would be helpful if he could update the House on that point. May I also ask whether any proportion of the aid budget is likely to be allocated to him for this specific issue?

Johnny Mercer: At this moment, funding on this issue has not been agreed. Certainly, when I was doing this programme in the summer and clearing the hotels, the budget and resources were not a constraint. We had a bumpy start and the task was challenging, but we got there in the end: all those hotels were cleared and people were put into accommodation. The Prime Minister is committed to that, and I know that we will do the same over the next few months.

Joanna Cherry: I have raised before in this Chamber the case of a very talented Afghan man who worked for the British Geological Survey, which has a base in my constituency. He fled to Pakistan with his daughters, fearing for their lives, but now he has lost all hope. He was accepted for Pitting but did not make it to the airport, yet he has been cruelly rejected for ARAP, despite having worked for a Department for International Development project. He kept the British team safe in Afghanistan, and I want to know why we cannot include him and his daughters in the evacuation, before he is handed over to the Taliban.

Johnny Mercer: To be candid with the hon. and learned Member, I am happy for her to write to me about this case, but staff and civil servants are dealing every day with heartbreaking cases of people who fall either side of the line, and there is no deliberate decision to exclude anybody. We are trying as best we can in an incredibly difficult environment to respond to the applications and ensure that those who are eligible to be in the United Kingdom are here. If that individual is eligible for the ARAP scheme, that scheme is still open and he must apply to it. I am aware that some in the 333 and 444 communities in Afghanistan have been rejected and they are not entirely sure why. We are re-engaging in that process to ensure that it has integrity, and I am happy to look at the hon. and learned Member’s case again.

Seema Malhotra: Just 66 people have been resettled in the UK under ACRS pathway 2, and eligible applicants who have the support of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Pakistan are still waiting for their paperwork to be processed, including the mother and brothers of a constituent of mine, a courageous female journalist who has been granted asylum. Their lives are at demonstrable risk from the Taliban and they now face the horror of deportation. I have written to the Home Office repeatedly about this case. They meet all the criteria. They would have a place to live if they were able to reach here. Will the Minister meet me about this case to see what can be done?

Johnny Mercer: Sure. There are three different pathways to ACRS, and clearly some of them are larger than others. The latest immigration statistics show that by the end of June, 9,800 people had been granted settled status under ACRS. I accept that there are pathways where we could do more in this space, but the idea that we have only relocated about 60 people is not chiming with the data that I see every day. I want to ensure that  everyone who is entitled to be here is here. I will go out and make the case for who is entitled and who is not, and we will do everything we can to ensure that those who are eligible are here. I am happy for the hon. Member to write to me about that case, and I will look at it personally.

Stella Creasy: Let me try the Minister with this one, because he says that he wants to ensure that no one who is entitled to be in the UK is deported. My constituent is a British citizen whose children and wife are currently in Pakistan, threatened with deportation to Afghanistan. They were invited to the Baron Hotel. An explosion meant that they were unable to get there. Mr Ullah is terrified because he worked with the allied forces, but because he is a UK citizen his family are not eligible under either ARAP or ACRS. Family reunion visas would cost more than £20,000. Return to Afghanistan means certain danger. He is penalised by his status as one of our citizens. In the light of his bravery and service to our armed forces, will the Minister use the budget that he says is not a problem to waive those fees and bring Mr Ullah’s family here to safety?

Johnny Mercer: Immigration policy in this country is very clear, and the immigration policy outside ACRS and ARAP, which are what I have been asked specifically to deal with, is a matter for the Home Office, as the hon. Member knows. I recognise her question—I genuinely do—but it is a question on immigration policy for the Home Office. I will work night and day to ensure that everyone who is eligible under ARAP and ACRS is returned to the United Kingdom, in line with our promises.

Ben Bradshaw: The Minister has said a number of times that the Government have sought assurances from the Pakistani authorities that they will not target those Afghans who are eligible to come here. Has he received such assurances? If not, and if he does not, what is he going to do about it?

Johnny Mercer: I can confirm that I have received verbal assurances from the Pakistani authorities that those individuals are not going to be deported. I have to work night and day to ensure that that line is held, and I have made it clear to this House and to the country that we do not want to see any one of them deported. As I have said to the right hon. Member, and to others, I do not want to see that line crossed. If it is, I will return to the House and make a statement on it.

Rachael Maskell: The Hazari family of my constituent, a minor brought here under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees scheme, have had to flee Afghanistan and they have been waiting and waiting for their ACRS application to be processed. When can they expect that to happen, and when can they expect to be brought safely to the UK?

Johnny Mercer: I obviously cannot comment on an individual case, but if the hon. Lady writes to me today, I will personally look at her case and write back to her.

Luke Pollard: I am glad that the Government are now acting on Afghans who have been in limbo for a number of  years in Pakistan—an issue I raised with the Minister on 19 September. May I ask about the service family accommodation that he is intending to use for those Afghans? We know that there is a real crisis in the quality of service family accommodation, so can he guarantee that none of the service family accommodation that the Ministry of Defence is providing will have broken boilers, leaky roofs or black mould, which plague so much SFA that we have put our troops and their families in?

Johnny Mercer: This Government have put £400 million of extra spending into SFA; I recognise the problems with the quality of that SFA, which have been a challenge over many years. I do not want anybody coming back into the UK and living in service family accommodation that is not suitable for them. The Ministry of Defence is bending over backwards, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister for Armed Forces, to ensure that this stuff is online and suitable. Investment is going in, but I am determined that individuals will live in housing that is suitable for them, and I will personally be visiting them to make sure that they are.

Alex Sobel: I have been trying to get a group of interpreters trained by the University of Leeds from Pakistan to here for the last two years. It would be useful if the Minister could let me know who is eligible for the flights and how they will be contacted. The Minister also said that he had visited every hotel in the country. I have a hotel in my constituency and I do not remember him informing me that he was coming, but I would welcome him coming to that hotel, because everybody now has to be in a shared room and the facilities are not good.

Johnny Mercer: I would be interested to learn which hotel that is, because I do not want to see people in shared rooms, so I will speak to the hon. Gentleman after this urgent question. If he writes to me with the specific details of those interpreters, I will assess his case and determine which pathway is best to apply for and their certain eligibility to do so. However, I am particularly interested in the hotel and, if that situation is ongoing today, I will sort it out.

Janet Daby: I have been contacted by multiple constituents who arrived in the UK via the ARAP scheme. They are extremely worried about their relatives, the hardship they have experienced and the threat of danger with the recent events in Pakistan. These cases range from somebody who worked for the British armed forces for eight years, a family member who is pregnant and has two children, and a judge who has previously imprisoned members of the Taliban. Will the Minister agree to look at those cases, and will he also say whether he has the resources to resolve these matters urgently?

Johnny Mercer: I will look at every case. There is no policy decision to block those who are entitled to be in the UK from being in the UK. Many of us take this personally, and we will see this duty through. Of course I will look at every case and ensure that a decision is made fairly. There are individuals in the Ministry of Defence who are under extreme pressure and working incredibly hard to try to meet this challenge. It is very difficult. I am more than happy to look at cases again, but I do not want people to go away thinking that there is some blanket decision to reject these applicants and not to allow them the protections we promised then. That is categorically not the case and I am more than happy to look at individual situations.

Ruth Cadbury: My constituent’s parents fled Afghanistan for Pakistan. On appeal, they were granted adult dependent relative visas to join their family here, but before that decision was made, their Pakistan visa expired and they were forced to return to Afghanistan. Due to their being Hazaras, the fear of travel, their disabilities and medical needs, and the policy of the Pakistan Government, they cannot return to Pakistan to collect their paperwork to travel to the UK. Will the Government consider issuing some form of digital visa or travel document, so that they can fly to the UK and join their family here?

Johnny Mercer: I am more than happy, as I have said, to look at individual cases. We are dealing with competing pressures here of UK visas and Pakistan visas running out, but I can only reiterate what I have said: where there is a duty to these people, we will see it through, and I will work night and day to achieve that endeavour.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers to our questions. Last time, I asked him about a specific family, and we sent the information through. I want to reinforce the point about the forced deportation of that gentleman and his family, who are also Hazaras. In his job, he assisted the British Army for seven to eight years. For 18 months, I have been endeavouring to get them into the United Kingdom because of the risk of harm to them as targeted attacks continue. Just this morning, it has been reported that there was an attack on a bus taking people from Pakistan back into Afghanistan—it was blown up. The danger is clear—for me, anyway; I see it very simply. This cannot continue for that gentleman, his wife and their four children. We have a job for them, a house for them and a future for them. We just need the Minister’s help. Will he help me?

Johnny Mercer: The hon. Gentleman has already written to me about a case, which I think we have resolved. As I said, I am more than happy to look at individual cases. The eligibility criteria in these pathways are clear, and officials are working hard to ensure that they are as inclusive as they can be, but I will always look at personal cases and I look forward to receiving an email from the hon. Gentleman.

British Steel

Holly Mumby-Croft: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will make a statement on the announcement made by British Steel on 6 November, and provide an update on the negotiations between British Steel and the Government, and on the Government’s position on virgin steelmaking in the UK.

Nusrat Ghani: Steel is vital to the UK economy. I fully recognise the importance of British Steel to local communities, particularly in my hon. Friend’s Scunthorpe constituency, where the company is a major contributor to local economic growth, and where she campaigns incredibly hard for steelworkers.
Global conditions have been tough for steel companies around the world. That is why we have changed the competitive landscape for British Steel and other energy-intensive industries by announcing the British industry supercharger—a decisive package of measures to reduce the long-term electricity price gap that exists between UK energy-intensive industries and competitor countries. That support will mean that strategically significant UK industries, such as steel, are safeguarded against the high industrial electricity prices that they have faced in too many recent years. We have also provided over £730 million in energy costs relief to the steel sector since 2013, in addition to the energy bill relief scheme. Steel producers will continue to receive support until 31 March 2024 through the energy bills discount scheme.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government made an extremely generous offer of support to British Steel earlier this year to help it to invest in a decarbonised and sustainable future. We have continued to work intensively with British Steel since then and will continue to do so. However, she will also understand that the detail of those conversations remains highly commercially confidential and that any public discussion risks undermining talks.
I know that this must be a deeply concerning time for British Steel employees and others in Scunthorpe following the company’s announcement on Monday of its plans for future operations. I can very much assure my hon. Friend that we will help affected workers and their families, and that we are committed to finding solutions to enable the ongoing sustainable and decarbonised production of steel. Just last month, for example, we announced a £1.25 billion joint-investment package with Tata Steel to secure a decarbonised future for steelmaking in Wales. That has the potential to safeguard several thousand jobs across the UK. In 2020, the Government provided an emergency loan to Celsa Steel to help it continue trading during the covid pandemic, saving over 1,500 jobs, with a further 300 jobs created since the loan was made.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I stand absolutely unapologetically with steelmakers and my community today, and I do not support these moves. In this Chamber on 18 September, I asked the Minister for Industry whether she agreed that we need to retain a virgin steelmaking capability in the UK for strategic reasons alone. She said
“obviously, we need a place for virgin steel”—[Official Report, 18 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 1125.]—
and that that place was Scunthorpe. That was reiterated the very same day by the Secretary of State, and so pleased was I with the comments that she made that I took contemporaneous notes of that conversation.
British Steel is a private company and can make business decisions as it sees fit, but I am clear that if it is seeking hundreds of millions of pounds of public money, the Government must leverage that money to protect steelworkers’ jobs and maintain our sovereign capability to make steel in the UK. Electric arc furnaces melt scrap; to make virgin steel from scratch, we need blast furnaces. Can the Minister tell the House how the UK will make virgin steel if all our blast furnaces are decommissioned? Can she tell us how many countries in the G20 are unable to make their own virgin steel? Would the Government be comfortable with us being entirely dependent on foreign imports for the virgin steel we will continue to need in this country?
Will any financial support offered to British Steel seek guarantees on steel jobs and lock in, as a minimum, an interim period of blast furnace production to allow us to explore green options to run them? Did the Government know that this announcement from British Steel was imminent? When will I get a response to my letter of 29 September to the Secretary of State? Why did the Department not contact me until 5 pm on Monday, when I was sent simply a short text message? What support is the Minister offering our excellent North Lincolnshire Council, which is proactively working with British Steel to bring additional green jobs on to the site? This Government have a good record on steel—they have paid workers’ wages. Can the Minister confirm that steel remains high on the Government’s agenda?
I have 3,500 of the world’s finest steelmakers in my constituency. It is my privilege to come out and bat for them today. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question.

Nusrat Ghani: My hon. Friend makes lots of very credible points—there is very little for me to disagree with. She does indeed make representations at the highest levels of Government, and her priority has always been steelworkers; she has never played politics with that role. I put on record my apologies if I have not done due diligence and provided the public service that she should have received by being contacted much sooner on that particular day. There is nothing she could say that I would not be telling myself off for even more, and I hope I will not fall short in communications going forward.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: I did indeed say at the Dispatch Box that my personal opinion is that there is a strong place for virgin steel production in this country, and that, of course, is in her constituency. We are in the middle of live negotiations, and any decision taken by British Steel is a commercial decision. My hon. Friend is also right that we are able to carry out due diligence on any support we provide; it is taxpayers’ money, and our primary focus is to safeguard the sector and jobs, including in her constituency.
My hon. Friend is right to note that we have prioritised the UK steel sector, and we will continue to do so. We need to provide it with support as it transitions, because that is also a choice being made by manufacturers, customers and consumers who are looking for greener steel going forward. Any decision we take and any support  we provide will be to ensure that the sector is sustainable and competitive. We want the sector not just to survive, but to thrive.
My hon. Friend spoke about the support we have provided to the sector to date. We have provided hundreds of millions of pounds of support to British Steel to deal with its emissions, and over £730 million in energy cost relief to the steel sector since 2013. We have put the supercharger in place, as well as the steel procurement policy note, which does its very best to ensure that we procure more steel here in the UK. We have provided support to Tata to ensure that that part of the country can continue to make steel and to protect those jobs, and we have provided support to Celsa. My hon. Friend talked about the support we are providing to North Lincolnshire generally—there is a huge amount of support there. Since 2018, the Government have committed over £200 million in investment in the north and north-east Lincolnshire area.
I cannot say much more at this time because we are in the middle of live negotiations that are commercially sensitive. When British Steel put out its press release, that was the first time I saw it, but we must recognise that it was a proposal; many things have to fall into place for such proposals to become accurate plans—not only will there be issues around planning, but our negotiations have to conclude as well. I do not doubt that I will continue to lean on my hon. Friend, and that she will continue to champion steelworkers in her constituency and across the country.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for securing this urgent question, at what will be a very difficult time for her constituents.
The Labour party supports the transition to green steel. We recognise, as the Government have now conceded, that a blend of public and private funding is necessary to do that. We believe electric arc furnaces are part of the solution, but we do not believe they can be the only solution. Specifically, we believe that the retention of primary or virgin steelmaking in the United Kingdom is a matter of economic necessity and of national security. While we all welcome the return of steelmaking to Redcar, which should never have been taken away to begin with, this will clearly mean very significant job losses at Scunthorpe. I therefore have major concerns about this announcement, coming, as it does, just after the Government have confirmed a deal to also close the blast furnaces at Port Talbot.
First, the Minister said in her answer to her hon. Friend that talks are ongoing. I have to say that that is not my understanding of the current status of this deal. Could she confirm that, please? Secondly, is it true that carbon capture technology could not be pursued at Scunthorpe because of delays from the Government to the necessary infrastructure over the last 13 years and uncertainty about a future business model? In addition, is it correct to say that a DRI—direct reduced iron—solution could not go forward because of uncertainty over the Government plans for green hydrogen, which would obviously be essential for a DRI business model? Thirdly, do the Government recognise the figure of  2,000 job losses, and will the Minister confirm that this is the net figure covering Scunthorpe and Redcar—in other words, that once recruitment at Redcar is taken into account, job losses in Scunthorpe will likely be in excess of 2,000? Finally, will she confirm how much public money this announcement involves?
Most of all, I reiterate to the Minister that decarbonisation cannot mean deindustrialisation; we cannot simply outsource our emissions to other countries, call that progress and expect public support for the transition. A real plan for green steel must be open to all technologies, it must be industry-wide, and it should be a story of new jobs, new opportunities and British economic strength. Sadly, this announcement seems very far from that.

Nusrat Ghani: Negotiations are indeed ongoing, which is why I am limited in what information I can put out in the public domain; information is of course incredibly sensitive. British Steel will make commercial decisions, but if it is hoping to secure Government support, we need to make sure that we are getting value for money for taxpayers.
The hon. Member asked why decisions have been taken on the electric arc furnace compared with other technologies. It is because the other technologies just cannot come up to speed fast enough. In particular, the hydrogen-based direct reduced iron equipment just cannot enable furnaces to transition at the speed at which they need to. He is very much aware of that, and this is also a challenge in Europe, not just in the UK.
Fundamentally, there are a number of challenges for the global steel sector. First, there are energy costs, which we have done everything we can to provide support for, with the hundreds of millions of pounds to cover energy costs and now the supercharger. Secondly, we have to ensure that we get more UK steel into the UK economy. That is why the public procurement note was incredibly important for us to do, and we will be able to secure millions of pounds for more UK steel projects. Thirdly, there is a major challenge in that advanced manufacturers, customers and consumers are looking for greener steel, and a lot of companies are trying to reflect on how they can provide a green steel option. Having said that, it is a particular kind of steel; as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), for me that means a mix of virgin steel in the market as well. Of course, these are commercial decisions, but we need to make sure there is a mix to deliver for the UK market in particular.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) talked about the environmental issues and about hydrogen. We export a lot of scrap steel, and that also has a carbon footprint, so for us to have the capacity to turn that steel into products we can use will be incredibly useful. The positive news is that we are the eighth largest manufacturing country in the world. We are going to need more steel, not less, but there will also be demand for more green steel, not less, and we are trying to ensure that we provide support to the steel sector so that it can meet those market needs.

Edward Leigh: Many of my constituents work at Scunthorpe, and we are all obviously deeply concerned about them, but the whole House must be concerned about the Minister’s statements  in terms of our national security. There is no other major developed country in the world that is giving up its traditional blast furnaces—the only way we can make virgin steel. Frankly, the Minister did not bother to answer a single one of the brilliant questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). Will she now make it clear to the House that this Government are committed, as a major economy, to go on making virgin steel? Do it now.

Nusrat Ghani: As I have said repeatedly at the Dispatch Box, I fundamentally believe we need to have virgin steel capacity in the UK, but these are commercial decisions, and negotiations are continuing. These are incredibly commercial decisions, and we are doing our very best to support electric and virgin steel capacity in the UK. We are very much aware of the challenges we have in importing steel and with the global markets when it comes to the price of steel, and that is why we need to make sure we have a mix. These are commercial decisions, which is why negotiations are ongoing. Fundamentally, the announcement by British Steel was a proposal—nothing is done yet. We are still in the middle of negotiations.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Richard Thomson: May I begin by expressing my concerns on behalf of the 2,000 workers who are likely to be affected by this announcement? Also, I re-emphasise, as other contributors have, the importance of virgin steelmaking, not just in terms of security, but in meeting demand in the construction industry, where inflation is already racing ahead and our ability to build things will not be helped by being further away from the supply chain and reducing domestic capacity in steelmaking.
The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think-tank has said:
“Ageing blast furnaces need to be replaced and upgraded to produce greener steel…electric arc furnaces have a role in recycling steel”,
but
“failing to invest in modern hydrogen furnaces belies the government’s promises to invest for the longer term.”
Just as in the oil and gas sector, what plans do the UK Government have for a just transition for the steelmaking workforce? What support will the UK Government be giving to the development of hydrogen furnaces in the UK? What challenges will they put constructively to British Steel over these plans? Given the Government’s high-profile retreats on other climate measures, such as the date for banning the sale of internal combustion engine cars, how much faith can the industry have in any guarantees that the Government do make?

Nusrat Ghani: Negotiations are ongoing and nothing is concluded. The statement made by British Steel was a proposal, not a conclusion. The steel that comes out of electric arc furnaces can be used for a variety of things, including construction and military-grade steel—it is incredibly nimble—but I fully appreciate that different types of steel are produced out of different furnaces. The hon. Gentleman spoke about hydrogen, and the Government have a substantial hydrogen strategy that we launched in May 2022. The net zero hydrogen fund is worth up to £240 million of capital co-investment out  to 2024-25. That will support upscaled hydrogen production projects, allowing companies, including steel producers, the potential to secure supplies of lower-cost hydrogen. Ultimately, decarbonisation pathways for specific sites are commercial decisions for individual companies based on their own operational circumstances. In the case of Port Talbot, it was about timing for using a technology that can be commercialised at scale. At the moment, for that part of the country, it is electric. Hydrogen may no doubt be the next stage of technology that is used.

Greg Clark: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for her passionate support for steelmaking in her constituency? Just yesterday at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said that even when we get to net zero, we will still need to have oil and gas supplies. Does the same logic not apply to primary steel? We will still need that at net zero. Does that logic not extend to making sure we have the capability to make primary steel in this country to supply our needs in the future?

Nusrat Ghani: I agree on both points: first, on the incredible work that my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe does for steelworkers in her constituency; and secondly, that we cannot achieve net zero without a mix of steel being manufactured in the UK. We have a booming renewables sector, whether that is solar panels, blades for offshore wind farms, or electric vehicles. Much of that steel can be produced by electric arc furnaces, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) is absolutely right that there is a space for virgin steel, too.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for securing this urgent question. The Minister is in peril of presiding over the end of primary steelmaking in this country and the curtain falling on 300 years of Britain’s industrial history. The announcement comes at a time when an analysis shows that the Department’s budget is set for a 16% real-terms cut in the years ahead. Is it the policy of His Majesty’s Government that blast furnaces will stay in operation in our country and that we will not be dependent on imports of primary steel? When can we expect a conclusion to the negotiations and some safeguarding of the vital industry either at Tata or at British Steel?

Nusrat Ghani: I congratulate the new Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, of which I was previously a member. As I have made clear, these are commercial negotiations and they are ongoing. When the decision was taken on Port Talbot, discussions had taken place for several years—even decades. This will not take that long, but my point is that many Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box talking about steel and doing what can be done to protect and promote the steel sector in the UK. The negotiations are ongoing.
British Steel’s statement on Monday contained proposals and a plan—nothing is concluded yet. My focus, as our focus has always been, is on protecting the steel sector in the UK, protecting steel jobs in the UK and doing  everything we can to procure more British steel in UK manufacturing. Of course, that continues. These are commercial decisions about how companies wish to continue their business going forward. I have made it clear that fundamentally there needs to be a mix of steel produced in the UK in the steel market, but the reality is this. First, steel produced in electric arc furnaces is far more nimble because of the technology, and it can be used for many more materials in advanced manufacturing than previously—that is a fact. Secondly, manufacturers, customers and consumers fundamentally want a cleaner, greener steel package. It is not just me saying that at the Dispatch Box; it is also the UK steel industry representatives who have put together a net zero strategy and are talking about having cleaner, greener steel going forward. We have a lot of scrap steel in the UK that can be recycled, and we have far more capacity to recycle that than we have for that steel to be used in UK manufacturing, but, fundamentally, we need to have a mix. I believe that that mix will continue as long as it can and should, but these are commercial decisions. We continue to negotiate with British Steel.

David Davis: I have a simple question to put to the Minister; I hope that I will get a yes or no answer. Much of the arc furnace capacity is being moved away from Scunthorpe or not put in Scunthorpe because of a lack of grid capacity. That electrical grid capacity is due to be increased. If she were to accelerate the increase to 2025, we may save many more jobs in Scunthorpe. Will she seek to do that?

Nusrat Ghani: Unfortunately, there is never a simple answer to these questions. Access to the grid is a challenge for many industries, let alone for the steel sector. We have been doing everything we can to increase access to the grid. British Steel’s proposal—negotiations will continue—says that it has chosen two sites over one, with its key site at Scunthorpe and a second site at Teesside to be closer to its manufacturing work. That decision has been made for many other commercial reasons beyond access to the grid.

Jon Trickett: Yorkshire and the Humber is one of the great centres of steelmaking—in our area, there were more than 8,000 jobs in steelmaking, the last time that was counted—but how many jobs will be left when the Minister has finished with her cuts? Has she noticed that whenever the Conservative party is in government, it deindustrialises further? Unite the union—I declare an interest as a member—is saying that if the Government would commit to procurement of steel for all our relevant contracts, 8,000 further jobs could be created. What exactly does she make of that? Has she met representatives of the union to discuss that matter?

Nusrat Ghani: I meet representatives of the unions regularly, and I co-chair a steel council. The steel procurement policy note on increasing procurement in the UK was a personal ambition of mine. Previously, we did not calculate enough of the data on what was being procured and how we could continue to secure more contracts. Procurement has increased, with the value of contracts up by £97 million on the previous year. I want to go  further; that is only the starting point. Earlier today, I was with the Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and I will continue to work to ensure that there is more UK steel in all our construction, whether rail, road, automotive, aviation or anything else. The reality is that last year it increased by £97 million-worth of work.

Martin Vickers: I fully endorse all the comments of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). Many hundreds of my constituents work at British Steel, and I have a British Streel terminal on Immingham docks in my constituency. What assessment have the Department and the Treasury made of the impact on the local economy if the changes go ahead? The Minister talked about support for workers who may be made redundant. I have witnessed the decline of the fishing industry in the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area, which has ripped the core out of the community, who need generations of support. What plans will the Government put in place to ensure that that happens?

Nusrat Ghani: First of all, negotiations are ongoing, but I fully appreciate that the statements from British Steel will be incredibly unsettling for my hon. Friend’s constituents. Let me explain the way that we worked on Port Talbot. We were keen to ensure that any support we provided continued to guarantee jobs, in consultation with local stakeholders and the unions. We set aside a fund of around £100 million to ensure that people were reskilled and redeployed. That work will continue if circumstances require it. We are anxious about jobs. These are highly skilled workers, recognised internationally, and these are well-paid jobs. That is why negotiations are sensitive and continue at pace. If we provide support, we want to get the best deal for UK steelworkers.

Mark Tami: The Minister will know that Shotton steelworks rely on steel from Port Talbot. What assurances can she give on the supply of steel between the closure of the blast furnaces and the installation of new electric arc furnaces?

Nusrat Ghani: While negotiations were ongoing and support was being provided, we had a conversation to ensure that the supply chain continues to be resilient. A taskforce has been set up to ensure that supply chains continue to get support, working with the unions, Tata and the local community. We have been assured that supply chains will continue to secure the contracts that have been in place.

Simon Fell: Supporting British Steel need not be just about money; it can be about ensuring that the Government are joining the dots for industry and explaining the pipeline of work available to it. With the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS programmes, we have generations of need for virgin steel. The same goes for the new nuclear programme. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are doing that work and signalling to British Steel that the demand is there? Also, where we have control over procurement, are we ensuring that we lean towards the British market?

Nusrat Ghani: Absolutely. That is why procurement went up by £97 million recently. I was looking at what the industry group UK Steel reflected on when it came to  steel produced by electric arc furnaces—the reality is that a substantial amount of speciality military-grade steel can be manufactured using electric arc furnaces. We are working very closely with the steel sector to do everything we can to ensure that it secures UK contracts.

Jessica Morden: The Minister seems to be ignoring events in south Wales last week. I met steelworkers from Llanwern last week, who understandably are deeply worried following speculation about the closure of the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. What conditions were attached to the £500 million grant agreed with Tata? Was this the agreed plan? What are the Government actually doing to safeguard jobs?

Nusrat Ghani: We put in place a programme of work and a substantial sum of money—around £100 million—to ensure that the transition took place in a just fashion. Decisions will be taken by the transition board—as has been mentioned—about providing upskilling and reskilling and ensuring that there are assurances in the supply chain. The board is made up of the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister for the Economy of Wales, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries. Those decisions will be taken locally and in consultation.

John Stevenson: The Government have supported a coalmine in west Cumbria that will produce coking coal, which is used in steel production. Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible for strategic reasons—which should override commercial reasons—to retain virgin steel production capacity in this country, and that from a practical perspective the coal mined in Cumbria could be used in the production of steel in Scunthorpe? Will she take into consideration the wider issues in the policy decisions that she may make?

Nusrat Ghani: Absolutely. I think all of this has made it clear to British Steel that there is a supply chain here in the UK, not only in the ability to make virgin steel but in the market afterwards, but even with electric arc furnaces we still need some ability to access coal. These are decisions taken across many Whitehall Departments. My job, fundamentally, is to ensure that steelmaking in the UK continues at the pace that it has done and grows even further, and that we support the manufacturing sector, which requires British steel.

Richard Foord: The official march of the Royal Navy includes the words,
“Heart of oak are our ships”.
In the 21st century, virgin steel is the critical industry for the Royal Navy, in the way that timber was in the 18th century. I am the first to want reduced carbon emissions, but this move sounds more like offshoring than about reducing carbon emissions. What consideration have the Government given to the supply of steel to the defence industry?

Nusrat Ghani: First of all, negotiations continue; no decision has been taken. Having said that, the UK steel industry group, which oversees the steel sector in the UK, has made it very clear that military-grade speciality steel can be made in electric arc furnaces. I have been  working incredibly hard to make sure that more UK steel is procured in more UK contracts, including defence contracts.

Peter Gibson: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for her dogged campaign in respect of steel; she is a real champion for her constituents. This week’s news is bittersweet, as Teesside welcomes the return of steelmaking. Will the Minister outline what the whole Government are doing to support my hon. Friend’s constituents at this time, and what use of carbon capture and storage is being explored to ensure that we continue to produce our own virgin steel?

Nusrat Ghani: I of course agree with my hon. Friend’s first point: there is nobody more vocal about steel than my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). We have had a number of programmes in place to support the steel sector, because it has a number of challenges, as it has in many continental European countries. Fundamentally, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine caused energy costs to skyrocket, and we had in place an energy costs relief scheme for the steel sector, which has been worth up to £730 million since 2013. We now have the supercharger in place; I have spoken about the steel procurement policy note to ensure that there is more UK steel procured in UK markets; and, obviously, we provided support for Tata recently and Celsa previously. We are doing everything that we can—with my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, of course—to get the best deal possible for Scunthorpe, but these are commercial decisions and they are ongoing.

Alex Cunningham: It is clear from today’s comments that the Government are set to abandon more than 2,000 steelworkers in Scunthorpe, just as they abandoned over 3,000 on Teesside eight years ago. That said, I too welcome the news of a new arc furnace for Redcar, but let me give the Minister yet another chance to answer the question from the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and others: are the Government really going to settle for recycled steel and foreign imports, and consign virgin steelmaking in the UK to history?

Nusrat Ghani: Recycled steel can be recycled infinite times, so it does a huge amount for the circular economy. Because of the way technology has moved on, steel can now be used in many more sectors. We have a huge surplus of scrap steel, which we end up exporting to countries such as Turkey, Bangladesh and Pakistan. We could be reusing that in the UK economy. But as I said, these are commercial decisions and nothing has been concluded. The statement put out by British Steel was a plan or a proposal.

Chris Bryant: Does the Minister not accept that it is a matter of national security that we should retain the ability to create primary steel in this country?

Nusrat Ghani: I have put it on record previously that we need to ensure that we have blast furnace capacity in the UK, and that, fundamentally, should be at the Scunthorpe site. There are matters involving national security—for  instance, the anxieties about steel dumping from China and the issues emanating from Russia—and as we continue to manufacture at pace, we need to be able to ensure that we have access to steel manufactured here in the UK.

Jamie Stone: Some of the mightiest structures made of steel were built in my constituency, in the Nigg yard—I worked there myself once upon a time. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) talked about the strategic importance of the industry. May I point out to the Government that it is as important to my constituency in the far north of Scotland as it is to any other parts of our great United Kingdom?

Nusrat Ghani: I cannot disagree with that. I have been reading up on Scunthorpe steel: it has been used to create structures ranging from the Sydney Harbour Bridge to the London Eye, which demonstrates the breadth and the depth of its history.

Nia Griffith: The feedstock for the Trostre tinplate works in Llanelli is steel of a quality that can currently only be produced in the blast furnace process. Following the devastating news that Port Talbot blast furnaces will be closed by the end of March, leaving Trostre dependent on imported steel—quite possibly produced to lower environmental standards abroad, and certainly not saving on emissions—may I ask the Minister to stop just quoting commercial decisions, and tell us what strategy the Government have to develop the green technologies of the future here in the UK and to keep virgin steel production here as well?

Nusrat Ghani: I had a feeling that I had mentioned that a few times. We have a fund of about £1.5 million, partly aimed to ensure that we are adopting, testing and commercialising new technologies to enable the steel sector to decarbonise. We have done a huge amount of work on electricity and we are also considering the possibilities of hydrogen, so we are looking into alternative sources of energy to help the sector in the UK. I know there are challenges for places such as the hon. Lady’s constituency because of the sort of steel that they need, but the fact remains that more and more different types of steel can be made to a high standard and a high grade in electric arc furnaces.

Chi Onwurah: The move to net zero should deliver tens of thousands of long-term, well-paid, green industrial jobs, but with her Government’s sticking-plaster policies the Minister is destroying both jobs and sovereign national capability. Is it really her intention to leave behind her a British steel sector that cannot make British virgin steel, and if not, what is her plan? Labour has an industrial strategy for green steel; why does she not have one as well?

Nusrat Ghani: I simply do not recognise the picture that the hon. Lady paints. Our recent decision on Tata Steel was welcomed by UK Steel, the organisation representing the UK sector, which said that it was the way forward. UK Steel itself has a net zero strategy, and wants to see the transition proceed apace.
Decisions have been just left to sit there, but now we are able to provide the support that is needed. What we did in Port Talbot has saved thousands of jobs and allowed the adoption of new technology which will, indeed, create thousands of jobs as well.

Stephen Kinnock: Last Wednesday morning, Tata Steel executives in Port Talbot summoned the workforce to tell them of the plan to shut down our entire virgin steel making capability by March 2024. This was utterly shocking, because the understanding had always been that some of the heavy end would continue to function while the electric arc furnace was being constructed, but it takes years to construct an electric arc furnace. The plan is utter madness: it involves importing millions of tonnes of steel from the other side of the world. Electric arc furnaces need the products of virgin steel making, such as iron and iron ore—that is why we need direct reduced iron capability—and the loss of 3,000 jobs over a period like that is completely unacceptable and unnecessary.
When the Government did the deal with Tata Steel about Port Talbot, did they know that Tata was actually proposing not a transition at all, but a potentially lethal cliff edge for our steel industry? Did they know that Tata would be doing that? Does the Minister not agree that the idea of this process is that it should be a transition? It needs to be a bridge, not a potentially lethal cliff edge.

Nusrat Ghani: Tata Steel employs more than 8,000 people and 12,500 further in the supply chain. All of that would have been at risk if we had not been able to provide the certainty it needed to increase its investment to over £1 billion to allow it to transition. These are commercial decisions relating to the pace of transition. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a transition board in place because he is a member. If there has been a failure in consultation at the level and depth of time required, there is no doubt that he and I will take that up as we will both be at the next transition board meeting. The reality is that to ensure the long-term viability of steel in the UK, some tricky decisions have to be made, but the company was provided with support to make sure that it transitioned in a way that supported local jobs, knowing that it had to transition and support the supply chain.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her responses. We have committed to a net zero target, but consideration must be given to the potential loss of 1,500 to 2,000 jobs, which could be gone from the industry. We have been told that the two furnace closures could put further employment at risk for many. What steps will be taken to ensure that the steel sector and industry jobs throughout the whole of the United Kingdom will be protected? I had a meeting this morning where it was confirmed to me that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is No. 7 in the world for manufacturing. If that is the case, steel is a key part of that. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) is to be congratulated on bringing forward this urgent question. Really, Minister, we need to make sure that the industry can be retained and not reduced at all.

Nusrat Ghani: That is why the support was so substantial to Port Talbot, to ensure that the steel sector could continue to thrive here in the UK. Manufacturing in the  UK is booming. We are the eighth largest manufacturer in the world and we need to get our goods fundamentally from the UK, including steel. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we cannot achieve net zero without steel, but we can help steelmaking to become even more green and clean than it is at the moment.

Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that this news gives up on the UK’s capability to produce primary steel?

Nusrat Ghani: I do not, because it was a plan or proposal put out by British Steel. We have not concluded negotiations.

Mike Amesbury: This is a question of national security. It is not just a commercial decision. A specific question was asked of the Minister by the shadow Secretary of State on job losses specifically in Scunthorpe. Is that figure of 2,000 correct?

Nusrat Ghani: Negotiations have not concluded. We are continuing to be in intensive talks with British Steel. We wish to provide the support that is needed to support the steel sector and steel jobs but negotiations will continue. We need to make sure that due diligence is done and that we get value for money for taxpayers, whose money we are going to put on the table. But look at what we achieved at Port Talbot—a sector that was unable to confirm its future until we provided it with the financial support that it needed.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation

Andrew Mitchell: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. A tragedy is unfolding. Israel has suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. Palestinian civilians in Gaza are experiencing a devastating humanitarian crisis and violence is rising in the west bank. The best estimates emerging from a confused situation are that 2.3 million people need access to safe drinking water, food supplies are running out, one third of hospitals have been forced to shut down and 1.5 million people are displaced. I know that the whole House shares my pain at seeing so many innocent lives destroyed on and since 7 October.
Britain is working intensively to get more aid into Gaza, to support the safe return of hostages and British nationals, to back Israel’s right to self-defence and to prevent a dangerous regional escalation. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been engaging extensively and Lord Ahmad has been constantly in the region. This morning I met a group of charities and non-governmental organisations involved in getting life-saving support into Gaza. I spoke yesterday to the Jordanian, Lebanese and Egyptian ambassadors and early this morning once again to Martin Griffiths. I wish also to pay tribute to our diplomats and development experts who are striving to make a difference in the most difficult of circumstances.
Despite the many challenges, the whole Government are determined to do all that we can to continue to stand up for what is right and do the right thing. Immediately after Hamas’s brutal assault, the Government brought home almost 1,000 British nationals safely on charter and military flights, but the safety of all British nationals is our utmost priority, so we are in regular contact with those in Gaza registered with us since the conflict began. Working with partners, we have been engaging intensively with Israel and Egypt to allow foreign nationals to leave Gaza via the Rafah border crossing. This has proved possible on five of the last seven days, and I can confirm to the House that, as of late last night, more than 150 British nationals had made it through to Egypt. A forward-deployed team of consular officials is in el-Arish, close to Rafah, to meet them and provide the medical, consular and administrative support they need. We have also set up a reception centre for British nationals in Cairo and have arranged accommodation. We will do everything we can to ensure that all remaining British nationals in Gaza can leave safely.
Sadly, among the British nationals in Gaza some are held hostage by Hamas, among the more than 200 innocents cruelly kidnapped on 7 October. Their plight is a stark reminder of what Hamas represent. The terrorists continue to launch rockets relentlessly at Israeli homes and families. Their stated aim, repeated publicly in recent weeks, is the destruction of the Israeli state and the eradication of its people. That is why the Government unequivocally support Israel’s right to defend itself. However, we have also repeatedly stressed that Israel must take every precaution to minimise civilian casualties in line with  international humanitarian law. We continue to press Israel to ensure that its campaign is targeted against Hamas leaders, militants and military infrastructure. We also condemn settler violence. Israel needs to take concrete measures to address it and hold the perpetrators to account.
All parties to a conflict must ensure that their actions are proportionate and necessary, affording innocent civilians the protection that is their right under international law. Who can doubt that this is true, because the Palestinian people are also victims of Hamas. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed his condolences to the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, for the deaths of Palestinian civilians caught in the aftermath of Hamas’s attack.
Since 7 October, the UK has made available £30 million of additional aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, more than doubling our existing aid commitment for this year. So far, three UK flights carrying a total of 51 tonnes of aid have landed in Egypt. The shipments included life-saving items such as wound care packs, water filters and solar powered lights. We have also sent humanitarian advisers and vital equipment including the forklift trucks, belt conveyors and lighting towers specifically requested by the Egyptian Red Crescent Society to help it to manage and deliver all the international aid received in Egypt more effectively. For this aid to meet escalating needs, however, it must enter Gaza and do so in much greater quantity. The Government have been working closely with partners including the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Egyptian and Israeli Governments to achieve this.
Since 21 October, a limited number of trucks of aid have crossed into the strip, but the volume going through the Rafah checkpoint is nowhere near enough to meet civilian needs and it cannot be, even were it operating at full capacity. We are therefore urgently exploring with partners measures that can help to increase the flow of humanitarian support. These measures must include effective humanitarian pauses, as agreed by all the G7 countries in Tokyo this morning, and we are urging Israel to consider utilising the facilities at other land border crossings into Gaza, such as Kerem Shalom. This reflects our current assessment that delivery by land remains the only safe option to deliver aid in the quantity needed in Gaza while ensuring the necessary control and oversight. Control and oversight matters, given the absolute imperative of ensuring that aid reaches those in need and is not diverted or misused. Aid diversion is a real risk—more so during conflicts—and I will set out to the House how we are managing those risks.
All UK aid undergoes rigorous oversight. No funding goes to Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Our humanitarian programme in the Occupied Palestinian Territories already operates with enhanced sensitivity, with the Government having introduced additional safeguards in 2017. They include measures to verify and map downstream partners, non-payment of local taxes, and enhanced due-diligence processes. We constantly review the due-diligence assessments in place with all partners involved in delivering aid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The whole House recognises, however, that to prevent further conflict and terrorism and truly alleviate civilian suffering, there must be a political solution to the conflict. This issue is uniquely polarising. We have seen across the world and in our own communities its potential to radicalise. The long-standing British position on the middle east process is unchanged: we want to see a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. The urgency of a political track—extraordinarily difficult today—has never been more clear. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to live in peace and security.
We have moral clarity over Israel’s right to self-defence and we reject all forms of antisemitism, but we are also committed to discharging our moral duty to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Palestinians and we reject all forms of Islamophobia. The current turmoil must act as a further impulse towards realising a peaceful future for the region, and the UK will be doing all it can to achieve that. I commend this statement to the House.

Roger Gale: I call the shadow Minister.

Lisa Nandy: I thank the Minister for the copy of his statement and for his call last night.
Four weeks on from the horror of 7 October, it is hard to comprehend the scale of the devastation in Gaza: almost 1.5 million people displaced and more than 10,000 people killed, with more trapped under the rubble of destroyed buildings. Every single one of those lives matters. Every single death is a devastating tragedy. With two thirds of the dead being women and children, these civilian deaths are not just shocking—they cannot be ignored. Hundreds of thousands of people are crowded into shelters in desperate need of food, water, medicine and fuel. And while we welcome the 93 trucks that entered through Rafah on 6 November, that is completely insufficient to meet the scale of humanitarian need.
I was surprised the Minister did not make more mention of fuel, because this is the urgent priority. Without it the water cannot flow, the hospitals cannot power their incubators and the food cannot be cooked. The sewage system breakdown is now threatening a major public health crisis. For weeks, the international community has demanded that the siege conditions on Gaza be lifted, but that has still not happened. That is totally unacceptable and it cannot continue.
Both the UN humanitarian co-ordinator Martin Griffiths and the United States have made serious efforts to break the deadlock, and to provide the assurances that Israel needs about fuel diversion. Can the Minister tell the House what efforts the Government are making to insist that fuel for humanitarian purposes can get into Gaza? I welcome his update on discussions about Kerem Shalom, but what is his assessment on the speed at which that could be achieved? May I urge him again to follow the US example and appoint a humanitarian co-ordinator to scale up the passage of aid?
We all recognise that while rockets and bombs continue to fall, it is impossible to deliver the scale of aid needed across the whole of Gaza and to repair the damage, extensive as it is, to water and electricity systems. We all want an end to the violence and the urgent release of hostages, but with Hamas leaders doubling down on  their determination to attack Israel, and with Israel ruling out a ceasefire until hostages are released, the reality is that humanitarian pauses are, as Martin Griffiths wrote movingly last week, “the only viable prospect”. In Cairo last week, Ministers and aid agencies impressed on me the urgency of that. Pauses provide not only much needed aid, but space: space for the basic humanity to bury the dead; space to look past the pain; and space for dialogue to make progress towards peace more likely. This is needed now. No more delay.
We are devastated by the deaths of so many aid workers and United Nations Relief and Works Agency staff—the highest number killed in any conflict in the UN’s history. I hope I join the whole House in mourning their loss and paying tribute to their bravery and their humanity. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Safe shelters, safe distribution centres, and safe medical facilities, hospitals and emergency service convoys are essential.
I echo the Minister’s words about the unacceptable nature of settler violence in the west bank, but will he join me in reiterating our calls that Israel’s clear right to self-defence is not a blank cheque? He acknowledged the importance of international law. Has he raised the protection of hospitals, schools and refugee camps with his Israeli counterparts, and the need for action to be in accordance with international law in order to protect civilians and ensure safe and unimpeded access for aid?
The average age in Gaza is just 18. Make no mistake: this is a children’s war. More children have died in Gaza in four weeks than in all the world’s conflicts in each of the last three years. There are 1 million children caught up in the devastation who are orphaned and displaced, sleeping outside as the weather grows colder, short of food and forced to drink dirty water. In most conflicts we would expect children to be evacuated to a safer place to receive care and shelter. What makes this so devastating is that, almost uniquely, in this conflict that is not going to happen.
In the face of such an extraordinary threat to children, the international community is obligated to do more. With the Foreign Secretary at the G7 this week, will the Government join us in calling for an emergency plan to support the children of Gaza, to prioritise aid to children, safe and protected shelters for food, clean water and medical care as winter sets in? The crisis did not start in Gaza on 7 October. Even before then, two thirds of children were suffering from trauma. One aid agency that operates in North Sinai and Gaza told me last week that this now stands at 100%. Without a long-term co-ordinated plan for the children of Gaza, the political solution we need will not be realised and the cycle of violence will not be broken. We can and must do more.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady very much for her comments and for the priorities she set out in her response. I echo her comment about the brave humanitarian workers who lost their lives. She will remember that we consistently condemned that in the case of Sudan, where approximately 20 lost their lives. As she has, we honour, across the House, the more than 100 humanitarian workers—unarmed people putting themselves in harm’s way deliberately to help their fellow citizens—who have lost their lives.
I also pay tribute to those working in the crisis centre in Whitehall. One hundred or so officials, nearly all volunteers and very young, were working triple shifts  the night that Rafah opened, working through the night to help British citizens. I pay tribute to them, their spirit and their hard work.
The hon. Lady made a particular point about the importance of fuel and, of course, she is absolutely right. We are negotiating for it. She will know that Hamas have a lot of fuel in their tunnels—we recognise entirely what that fuel is being used for—so fuel could be made available to help in humanitarian purposes. We are doing our best to negotiate for it. She will also have seen today’s G7 statement, which is very clear on these points.
The hon. Lady asks about routes for access, and the American envoy, Mr Satterfield, has been working non-stop to try to work out whether we can speed up other routes, using Kerem Shalom and Rafah, and we will continue to do all that.
The hon. Lady prioritises the importance of pauses, and we completely agree. We are arguing for humanitarian pauses, but she will also accept that, in the method within the pause by which humanitarian support is distributed, it is extremely important that we do not repeat the mistakes we made in Srebrenica, Rwanda and northern Iraq, when vulnerable people were brought together whom we were unable to protect. There are very clear guidelines on any pauses and safe spaces, and there must be absolute protection for those who go to them.
The hon. Lady mentioned that support for Israel is not a blank cheque. Of course, she is right. Good friends deliver hard messages, and they are able to do so precisely because they are good friends. She talks of children, and I saw UNICEF this morning. I entirely recognise the passion with which she raised that point. We will do everything we can to ensure that the priority of children is recognised in all the humanitarian work we do.
Finally, I remind the House of the wise words of our former colleague, and former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Hague. At the end of his brilliant article in The Times on 9 October, he said:
“It is no consolation to those caught up in it but…this is no strategic masterstroke by Hamas, more a desperate move to fend off a future that is rapidly leaving them behind.”
We should not forget that, the day after this, there will be an urgent need for a political context.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. I and, I suspect, my successor in the Chair will do our utmost to accommodate all Members, because we recognise the importance of this subject. I would be grateful if hon. Members would keep their remarks as brief as possible under the circumstances, in order that we can accommodate everybody.
I also gently remind the House of the admonition offered by Mr Speaker yesterday. We are dealing with very sensitive and very emotive issues. Words matter and the tone of those words matter. I know the House is capable of rising to an occasion, and I trust that this will be one of them.

Andrew Selous: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Government’s calls for humanitarian pauses will continue and be insistent. The Minister talked about a viable Palestinian  state, which requires land. The reality is that so much of that land has been lost to illegal settlements. Will he continue to make that point, because a brighter future will require land to guarantee the peace we all yearn for.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course we will continue, as he suggests, to prioritise the issue of pauses. He will know that, in my statement, I condemned settler violence, as did the Prime Minister in yesterday’s response to the Gracious Speech. What he says is right, and we will not forget that.

Chris Stephens: I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s comments paying tribute to all the UN and aid workers who have been killed. The Minister is correct to remind the House that UK nationals are being held hostage by Hamas.
That said, the Israeli military must follow the laws of war in this situation. Have the Government made an assessment of Israel’s compliance with international human rights law since 14 October? As he mentioned in his statement, hospitals in Gaza are running out of fuel and UNRWA is warning that its aid operation will shortly “come to a stop” if fuel supplies do not get into Gaza, with blood and life-saving equipment also running out. Have the Government considered sending a military hospital ship to Egypt to help injured men, women and children who have been able to leave Gaza?
Finally, the Minister rightly said that there must be a political solution. The Red Cross has said that it is
“not an exaggeration to say it’s catastrophic in Gaza.”
In Gaza, 4,100 Palestinian children have died—a rate of 180 children a day. At what point will the UK Government join the many of us who are asking them to use their leverage to reach that political solution and call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he says and the tone in which he says it. I also thank him for what he says about the brave humanitarian workers who have lost their lives. He asks whether we are aware of the full impact of supplies running out in Gaza, and I can assure him that we absolutely are. He speaks about the importance of following the rules of war and international humanitarian law, and both Front Benches are urging the Israeli Government to do that. We note the commitment of the President of Israel in that respect, but everyone will be watching to ensure that the rules of war are obeyed.

Saqib Bhatti: I have not spoken to a single constituent who has not felt the pain and tragedy of the 1,400 people murdered on 7 October, or of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. I commend the Minister for all the work he is doing, and I know he works incredibly hard to make sure no stone is left unturned. Can he confirm that aid will increase, if necessary, in future? Does he share my concern about the risk of the conflict expanding because of the presence of Hezbollah? Its 100,000 soldiers and 150,000 rockets pose a risk to the region.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We have doubled the amount of aid going into the region, but we will increase it further if necessary. We   are currently doing a lot of work to try to work out how to quantify what is in el-Arish and how to make sure it can be moved. Physically moving the aid is also a factor, which is why Britain has sent five forklift trucks and a conveyor belt.
Of course, regional expansion is an enormous worry for us all, and it is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister decided to send both air and naval assets to RAF Akrotiri in the eastern Mediterranean, to see what is being moved, to interdict any arms that are coming in, and to make sure we do everything we can to ensure that this conflict is contained and does not expand further.

Rupa Huq: Ten thousand people have been killed in a month, with UN staff, buildings, hospitals, journalists and the third oldest church in Christendom unspared, since Hamas’s deadly atrocities. There are 230-plus hostages still in captivity. The Minister talks about being a critical friend, so will he urge the Netanyahu Administration to recognise that statements such as the one about a “permanent” Gazan takeover, with some Israeli Ministers not even ruling out nukes, are only losing them support? Does he have any advice for my constituent, whose sister is a survivor of a family mostly wiped out when they moved south, as instructed? He says, “We don’t just want to manage to eat before dying under rubble.”

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. As far as the hostages are concerned, she will appreciate that we do not give a running commentary on those negotiations. She may rest assured that we are working very closely, including with Qatar, to secure their release. She will have seen the condemnation of the nuclear comment made by a senior Israeli.
On the subject of what happens when the conflict is over, she will have seen the very constructive comments made not only by some of the surrounding Arab leaders but by Secretary Blinken when he addressed that point.

Theresa Villiers: I appreciate that the Minister is limited in what he can share on sensitive diplomatic matters, but will he assure the House that the UK Government are doing everything possible to work with allies to negotiate the return of the hostages?

Andrew Mitchell: Yes.

Chi Onwurah: As we see the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, with the terrible images of the dying, displaced and maimed, our focus must be on getting humanitarian aid to them and a humanitarian pause for them. As we look forward to a time when the bombing stops, does the Minister agree that the lack of focus on progressing a two-state solution over the past decade and more was a failure on the part of the international community? Will he set out something of what he will be doing to bring renewed focus on a just political settlement to the conflict in the region?

Andrew Mitchell: The Foreign Office and British Government are very focused on how to re-energise the peace process when the opportunity presents itself. The hon. Lady will have seen the comments that have been made about both a civil Administration in Gaza and what is necessary  to secure peace when that point arrives. It is important to note that the huge progress—ultimately unsuccessful—that was made at Oslo took place on the back of the first intifada. It may therefore be that there will be an opportunity, given the disaster that has taken place, to re-energise that political track. We must make sure that if that opportunity presents itself, we grasp it with both hands.

David Davis: This is something that unites the House more than divides it, certainly on the issue of the horrors going on in Palestine right now and what caused them. We all recognise the personal commitment of the Minister to humanitarian aims and, in particular, to humanitarian pauses. Does he agree that those who call for a ceasefire must recognise that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and, as was said by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) yesterday, that terrorist organisations go for ceasefires only when they suit their own regrouping, not to end violence?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and, of course, he is absolutely right. We all recognise the motivation of those who call for a ceasefire and why they are doing it, but at this time, in this situation, it is perfectly clear that Hamas have no intention of engaging in a ceasefire. Indeed, they have repeatedly made it clear that their intention is to repeat the awful events of 7 October. So I agree entirely with both his understanding and prediction of the situation.

Wera Hobhouse: I and many of my constituents continue to be upset beyond words by the human suffering we have seen on television screens since 7 October. So often, I am being asked to take sides, but, in the words of Jonathan Freedland:
“This is not a football match… Two peoples with deep wounds, howling with grief, fated to share the same small piece of land.”
Does the Minister agree that the side we need to be on is the side of all those who are working towards a lasting peace?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is entirely correct in her last point, and indeed in all that she said. She says that her constituents are upset beyond measure. One thing we can all agree, wherever we stand on this issue, is that everyone is upset beyond measure. Therefore, she is right to say that we must focus, whenever the opportunity presents itself, on the political track and all the opportunities that could then open up.

Michael Ellis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his long-standing work in this area. The shadow Minister spoke of fuel and water. On 7 October, amid Hamas’s atrocities in Israel, the terrorist group made a concerted effort to destroy water and electricity lines from Israel into Gaza. Apparently, Israel has reopened two of the three water lines into Gaza, but the third remains heavily damaged, as do the power lines. Does he share my concern that Hamas deliberately seek to worsen the humanitarian conditions inside Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments, and of course he is right. Once again, I draw his attention to the words of the  former Foreign Secretary Lord Hague, who so accurately, so soon after these awful events took place, predicted the reasons why Hamas were doing this and why, ultimately, they must fail.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the response from my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). Will the Minister distance himself from the description of the Palestine marchers as “hate-filled”? The constituents I have been talking to are decent, law-abiding families who have no truck at all with Hamas but who are horrified by the scenes they are seeing, of children killed and maimed, day after day on their screens and are wanting this to stop, as we all must. Will he distance himself from that description?

Andrew Mitchell: The rights of protest are much cherished in this country, and, of course, they are enshrined in law and we respect that. As for what the Home Secretary said, we are all responsible for what we say and she said it in the way that she did.

Richard Graham: First, let me thank the Minister, all his team and the United Nations agencies that are involved—Martin Griffiths and the people from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees who are on the ground, who obviously are in mourning for their colleagues—for all their incredible work to help with humanitarian aid. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is, in a sense, an intractable problem, because the nature of Hamas and how they are based in Gaza makes it impossible for Israel to defend itself effectively without, surely, breaking the rules of engagement and causing casualties, which everyone here finds very hard to accept? Does he therefore accept that the smidgeon of hope in all of this is that this disaster, which could repeat itself time and again, must be the catalyst for those in the region, above all, to lead on finding a proper political solution?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I hope that he will agree with my Oslo analogy and think that should give us all some hope at a very dark time. He is entirely right in what I take him to have meant, which is that Hamas can play no part in the future of Gaza after what has happened. I thank him very much for his comments about UN agencies and officials. There is no doubt that the UN, particularly UNRWA and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is working incredibly hard. I last spoke to Martin Griffiths just after 2 o’clock this morning, and I can tell the House that every sinew is being bent within the UN in trying to end an horrific state of affairs, which has been so accurately set out across the House.

Tan Dhesi: Heartbreakingly, the number of children killed in Gaza in just four weeks of Israeli bombardment has surpassed the number killed in global conflict zones for every year since 2019, so we must urgently work for peace and a two-state solution, however difficult that may seem, and urgently deal with the humanitarian crisis engulfing Gaza. It pains me to see that the death toll in the occupied west bank, which I recently visited, is rapidly rising, including as a result of an Israeli airstrike on a mosque and more deadly settler violence. Those victims  are certainly not Hamas. So will the Minister join me in condemning settler violence and the extremist rhetoric, and will he ensure that those perpetrators are held to account?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask us to condemn settler violence. The Prime Minister did that yesterday when he addressed the House, I did it in my statement, and it has been done from the Opposition Front Bench as well. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that violence in the west bank has reached unprecedented levels. We are doing everything we can to urge restraint and ensure that it stops. In what he said about children, he speaks for the whole House. The analysis of the problem is the easy part, but we are all working for the resolution.

Robin Walker: On children, I welcome both statements made from the Front Benches: my right hon. Friend the Minister is right to focus on every civilian life that has been lost in this conflict, and the hon. Member for Wigan was right to highlight the importance of children in this. I remind the House that the full wording of the Balfour declaration included:
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
Children’s rights should be at the heart of that, so may I urge my right hon. Friend to double down on the push for humanitarian pauses and for humanitarian access, to make sure that we can protect children’s rights to life and to education?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, with which I agree entirely, and for his recollection of the Balfour declaration.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am told by the Muslim Council of Wales that seven families in Wales have lost immediate family members in Palestine, with some having lost children and grandchildren. We fear for the Israeli hostages in Gaza, among them British citizens. More will lose their lives, which is why Plaid Cymru has tabled a motion in the Senedd calling on the international community to seek an immediate ceasefire. In advocating for humanitarian pauses, does the Minister recognise that innocent non-combatants in Gaza will again be killed when pauses cease and that the only way to achieve lasting peace is a ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Lady will have heard what I and the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), have said about ceasefires, but the hearts of the whole House will go out to the seven families—and maybe others too, in Wales—who have lost family members.

Bob Blackman: The atrocities on 7 October were well planned and well resourced. Indeed, Hamas, the terrorist group, stockpiled in advance, knowing what the response would be from Israel. Equally, Hamas have been caught out putting injured terrorists through the Rafah crossing into Egypt. What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of what Hamas should  do now to release the resources they have stockpiled, so that there can be a wider humanitarian effort than there is currently?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right and knows a great deal about these issues. He is right about the atrocities committed on 7 October by Hamas. This was a pogrom. It was the worst loss of Jewish life at any time in one day since the Holocaust and since 1945. One reason why the Rafah crossing is so difficult is precisely because of the circumstances that he described, with the misuse of the rules by injured Hamas terrorists.

Nadia Whittome: According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, more than 10,000 people have been killed by Israeli forces in the past month—that is one of every 200 residents of Gaza. That does not include everyone who may have died due to lack of clean water or the collapse of the healthcare system after fuel was cut off. How many more people must die before the Government join the UN Secretary-General, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, Oxfam and the UN General Assembly in calling for an immediate ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: Once again, the hon. Lady will have heard the views of spokespeople on both Front Benches on the issue of a ceasefire, but her comments underline the importance now of trying to achieve these humanitarian pauses, so that help and succour can be brought to those who are suffering.

Vicky Ford: The loss of life in Israel and Palestine is beyond horror and everybody wants it to stop, but the statement from Hamas that they will not stop until the people of Israel are annihilated is deeply chilling. In his statement, the Minister mentioned radicalisation and the concern that the greater the loss of civilian life, the greater the risk of radicalisation, so I thank him for saying clearly that Israel must take precautions to minimise civilian casualties. I would add that Israel needs to be seen to be taking such precautions. We continue to call for pauses in fighting to let aid in and people out. What assessment has he made of the likelihood of such pauses happening?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not think I can give a running commentary on that, except to say that the sinews of everybody are bent towards achieving it. My right hon. Friend makes a good point that, from all this death, destruction and killing, we must guard against the radicalisation of an entire new generation of young people. As President Biden said, it is very important that the lessons of 9/11 are properly learned.

David Linden: Those of us who support a ceasefire are getting the overwhelming message from both the Government and the Labour Front Bench spokespeople that somehow calling for a ceasefire is naive. Does the Minister think that the Pope is naive in calling for a ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: I have set out very clearly our understanding, our logic and the reasons why we and Opposition Front Benchers have reached the conclusions we have on a ceasefire. I hope, at the very least, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on those.

Antony Higginbotham: Getting aid into Gaza is vital and I welcome the Minister’s statement about looking for additional border crossings. What is more important is making sure that once aid is in Gaza, it gets to the people who need it most. Reports suggest that Hamas are holding more than 200,000 gallons of fuel that could be used for generators, to power hospitals or for ambulances. What is the Government’s assessment of Hamas holding fuel? What steps are being taken to ensure that once aid gets into Gaza, it does not end up in the hands of Hamas?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right that we know Hamas have hoarded fuel in Gaza, although I cannot give him a statistic on that. The statistic he gave to the House may or may not be right, but we know that they do have a stockpiling of fuel. In terms of the way in which support will be used once we get the pauses and are able to get help and humanitarian supplies into Gaza, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are very careful indeed. We never work through the Palestinian Authority or Hamas in terms of direct support; we only go through trusted organisations. As I set out in my statement, we are very careful indeed to ensure that the aid gets to those who need it and gets there directly.

Naseem Shah: The United Nations Secretary-General has said:
“Gaza is becoming a graveyard for children.”
More than 4,000 children have been killed since the start of the conflict. Every day we see footage of heartbreaking stories; I watched a small girl being pulled out of the rubble, asking her uncle if she was dead and whether he was taking her to a graveyard. Another video showed a girl of barely five stuck under a collapsed building, praying her final prayers in preparation for her death. At their age, children should be asking whether they are going to a playground, to buy an ice cream or any of those usual things, not whether they are going to a graveyard or preparing for their death. Children outside Al-Shifa Hospital yesterday felt they needed to do a press conference to call on the world to let them live. Minister, when will the UK ramp up its effort to end the bloodshed and ensure that Palestinian children just have the right to live?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady speaks with the greatest possible eloquence. She speaks for the whole House in saying that what is happening to children in Gaza appals us all. I just ask her to consider the wider context, accept that the Government understand and agree with her analysis of the plight of children in Gaza, and will do everything within the wider context to try to bring that to an end.

Flick Drummond: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests concerning my visit to Israel and Palestine in May this year.
I received a report from a surgeon at a hospital in Gaza today. He says the situation is beyond catastrophic and that he is seeing “horrific” injuries, the majority of which are to children. He says:
“The type of injuries we are seeing is not something a human mind can accept or tolerate.”
He goes on to say that people who are being pulled alive from the rubble
“are scratched and bleeding and full of flies.”
A lot of his report is very graphic, including the fact that many children have lost limbs and no one knows who many of them are. The UK is the penholder for the protection of civilians in conflict at the UN Security Council. Can we ensure that all health facilities, including the Indonesia Hospital in Gaza, which was at threat of being bombed, be protected from attack?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is entirely right to refer to the UK’s role at the United Nations. We take those responsibilities extremely seriously and our brilliant team who work at the UN are doing everything to justify the fact that we hold that particular pen, among any others. My hon. Friend will have heard what the Prime Minister said about the treatment of hospitals, and we will continue to do everything we can to protect them.

Ben Bradshaw: May I welcome the balance and tone of the Minister’s statement? When the Government make representations to the Israeli Government about the increase in settler violence in the west bank, what do the Israeli Government say in return?

Andrew Mitchell: These are ongoing discussions and they are made at many levels. The Prime Minister has spoken repeatedly to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and my colleague Lord Ahmad has been consistently in the region, as has the Foreign Secretary, so we are having those discussions at every level. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that what the Prime Minister has said, and what I have said from the Dispatch Box, is the thrust of those discussions, and we are doing everything we possibly can to drive forward what both he and I believe is the right answer to this.

Nickie Aiken: It is incredibly difficult to hear the testimonies of the survivors of the 7 October Hamas atrocities. It is equally difficult to see the media reports of what is happening in Gaza, particularly in relation to the children who are being affected. It is so important that we do all we can to bring this conflict to an end for the security and the futures of children in both Israel and Gaza. I welcome the extra humanitarian aid that is going into Gaza from the UK Government. Can the Minister please assure us that, once this conflict is over and even bigger humanitarian aid is required, the Government will do all they can to help rebuild Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: On my hon. Friend’s final point, there is no doubt that when peace comes and the international community is able to engage in a political process, the rebuilding of Gaza will certainly be a part of that. To her point about the awful testimonies of survivors from the 7 October attacks and the dreadful scenes that we see on our television thanks to the brave reportage of many journalists, there is no doubt that it is extremely difficult to watch, which is why the Government, along with our allies and others who are deeply concerned about this, are doing all we can to ensure that we bring this to a close as soon as we can.

Jeremy Corbyn: There are 1,400 dead in Israel and 10,000 dead in Gaza; there is increased military activity on the west bank, increased settler violence, and now more and more children dying as this conflict goes on in Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu is now promising that Israel will control the Gaza strip into the indefinite future. Is it not time that the British Government joined all those other sensible and reasonable voices around the world that are doing everything they can to demand and get a ceasefire to prevent any further loss of life and to begin to work out a peaceful future for all the people in the region?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard what his successor, the leader of the Labour party, has said on the subject of a ceasefire, and we agree with him. None the less, the right hon. Gentleman describes an extraordinarily difficult situation. He also talks about security on the west bank, the key purpose of which for Israel is to ensure that the rockets cannot come over the border again. I think we need to see security in that context, rather than in the ebb and flow of the debate that is going on at the moment.

Sara Britcliffe: We know that escalation is a real risk. With reports that Israeli forces have started raiding refugee camps on the west bank, we know that there is real risk to innocent Palestinians. There are also reports of Israeli settlers on the west bank becoming increasingly hostile in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Will the Minister please explain what specific steps he is taking to de-escalate the situation?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes the point that escalation is not just about the region, but about the west bank as well. That is why the Prime Minister has condemned settler violence and why we continue to make representations to the Israeli Government in that respect.

Mike Amesbury: On the question of humanitarian pauses, can the Minister tell us his assessment of how long they will last, how people will be protected, and how those pauses will be managed? He referred briefly to those points in his statement.

Andrew Mitchell: The aim of humanitarian pauses is not only to get humanitarian relief and supplies into Gaza, but to ensure that there is a safe structure, as I said earlier in my statement, to deliver humanitarian supplies, and one that does not put people in jeopardy. Therefore, a humanitarian pause should not be seen as one on its own; we are looking at negotiating a series of humanitarian pauses, so that there can be a proper supply basis for the people we are trying to help.

Rob Butler: Many constituents have raised concerns with me about the humanitarian crisis faced by Palestinians in Gaza. Indeed, a march was held in Aylesbury on Saturday, which, I am pleased to say, passed off peacefully. We know that Hamas hide behind human shields—including, shockingly, even in hospitals. How is my right hon. Friend’s Department working with partners on the ground in Gaza to ensure that aid gets to those who need it, including in hospitals, despite the barbarity and the barriers put in their way by Hamas?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the importance of ensuring that Hamas brutality does not fetter our ability to get aid through to those who really need it. I can give him the undertaking that that is precisely what we are trying to do.

Julie Elliott: Against the backdrop of a child dying every 10 minutes in Gaza and evidence that water entering as aid through the Rafah crossing is not being allowed into northern Gaza, will the Minister confirm that the Government support the independence of the International Criminal Court and recognise its jurisdiction to address the conduct of all parties in the conflict in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about the importance of prioritising children. In respect of the International Criminal Court, she will know that the Government are a very strong supporter of it and the role that it plays in international affairs.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement; I agreed with every single word of it. In my 13 years as an MP I have never received such detailed and harrowing letters from my Jewish and Muslim communities in South Derbyshire. Whatever else happens, please can we make sure that, looking to the future, we work on the two-state solution and put in place a safe place for all Gazans and Jewish families going forward?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend accurately summarises the role and the importance that the Government attach to progressing the political process, and I thank her for her comments in that respect.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister tell us whether his discussions with charities and non-governmental organisations this morning included aid agencies such as Oxfam, Christian Aid or Save the Children? They say that only a full ceasefire can deliver the conditions to get lifesaving food, fuel, water and medicine into Gaza, not least because critical infrastructure, such as roads and hospitals, needs to be mended first and that cannot happen if there are only humanitarian pauses. I know that he has said a lot this afternoon about the difference between pauses and a ceasefire, but he has not addressed explicitly the advice that we are hearing from humanitarian experts on the ground who say that only a full ceasefire will allow them to get that kind of aid fast enough to the people who need it.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is correct about the importance of tackling the deficiencies of infrastructure, both in the area around Rafah and more extensively than that. She asks about my contact with NGOs and charities. As she said, I had a meeting this morning that was chaired by the British Overseas NGOs for Development—BOND— which is the collective of charities. We operate through trusted partners, such as UNICEF, UNRWA and UNHCHR, and we are in continual contact with them. The point she makes about infrastructure is one that we are very much aware of and will do everything we can to assist with.

James Morris: The Minister is absolutely right to say that Hamas made a massive strategic error when they attacked innocent Israeli people on 7 October, and they are  paying a heavy price with the destruction of their terror network in the Gaza strip. However, does he agree that the bigger price that they should pay is the moderate voices on both sides coming together to re-establish the framework, as he has referred to, that was in place under Oslo, going towards a two-state solution between a viable Israeli state and a viable Palestinian state, and getting the terror network out of the way?

Andrew Mitchell: Not just in Britain but all around the Arab world and the United Nations, people are very much focused on how to get a political track going again when these dreadful events draw to a close. As I said earlier, I think the one opportunity that may arise from these dreadful events is an effort to rebuild the political process to deliver an answer on the way we go forward politically—my hon. Friend mentioned the two-state solution, which is the bedrock of British Government policy.

Rachael Maskell: I spoke to a constituent last night who is studying in York. He has lost 42 members of his wider family, and his immediate family remain in the line of rockets in Gaza. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there can be family reunions, and that refugees can come from the Gaza strip to the UK?

Andrew Mitchell: We are working very hard to ensure that families are not broken up through the Rafah crossing. We have been moderately successful at that so far. I am sure that everything that can be done will be done. If any of the hon. Lady’s constituents are caught up in that way, I hope that she will let us know in the crisis centre through the MP hotline.

Mark Logan: I put on record my thanks to the Bolton Council of Mosques, which covers 34 mosques in my constituency and has 60,000 members across the town. My constituents have felt very aggrieved over the last month. We have seen statements coming out of Israel about having “security responsibility” for Gaza for an “indefinite period”. The Minister mentioned that Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that there shall be no Israeli reoccupation of Gaza after the war. What is our Government’s position on that in the long term? My constituents through the Bolton Council of Mosques have called repeatedly for a ceasefire. I will meet them again tomorrow night. From our Government’s perspective, what criteria would have to be met in order for us to call for a ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: I know that my hon. Friend has been deeply engaged in representing his constituents, and I am aware of the representations that he has made. I hope that he will explain to his constituents tomorrow night the reasons why a ceasefire is not something that either the Government or the Opposition are calling for. I hope that he will be able to explain that we are doing everything that we can both to construct a scenario where there can be a number of pauses and to ensure that humanitarian support can be safely delivered within Gaza.

Afzal Khan: The International Committee of the Red Cross has reported that as Gaza loses power, hospitals lose power, putting newborns in incubators and elderly patients who are on  oxygen at risk. Without electricity, hospitals turn into morgues. Does the Minister not think that at this point bringing an immediate stop to the violence is the only way to stop hospitals turning into morgues and the whole of Gaza turning into a graveyard?

Andrew Mitchell: We are extremely concerned about the position in hospitals and the effects that the hon. Gentleman has described, but I can only repeat what I have already said to the House about how we are doing everything that we can to try to bring these circumstances to a close.

Neil Hudson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and for his, the Prime Minister’s and the Foreign Secretary’s ongoing diplomatic efforts. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the brave humanitarian workers who are doing so much in Gaza, and can he reassure the House again that the UK Government are straining every sinew to get as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as quickly as possible?

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again reiterating the strong support across the House for the brave humanitarian workers and what they are doing in this terrible conflict, and for expressing his abhorrence that unarmed people who are trying only to benefit their fellow humans should be murdered in this way. He can rest assured that we will do everything that we can to ensure that they are protected.

Ruth Cadbury: Hounslow’s Muslim leaders told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) yesterday evening of the horror felt in their communities at the atrocities taking place in Gaza, the need to get aid and support in, and their wish for long-term peace. Now that Israel is threatening to occupy Gaza permanently, will the UK Government support the US Secretary of State Blinken’s insistence that there should be no Israeli occupation of Gaza after this war?

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for telling the House about her meetings with the Muslim leaders in her constituency. I hope that she will tell them about the position of the House, the aid and support that we are trying to get in through the pauses, and the support for the political process that she mentioned. The British Government agree with what Secretary Blinken said, but are absolutely clear that the perpetrators of the dreadful events on 7 October—Hamas—must never be allowed to do it again.

Paul Bristow: My constituent Momon Zomlot is from Gaza. I met him when he was working as a chef at a local pizza restaurant. He is an incredibly nice and genuine guy, but this morning he sent me a text informing me that his family home was destroyed three days ago and he has heard nothing from his family since. How much longer do we have to wait until this suffering ends and humanitarian aid can reach people such as my constituent’s family?

Andrew Mitchell: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the answer to that, but I can tell him that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the period is as short as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. I indicated that I would endeavour to accommodate everybody. That remains the case. The Minister has indicated to me that he has effectively cleared his diary to accommodate this statement, because he realises how important it is. But there is a time when everything has to come to an end, because a large number of Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, wish to speak in the King’s Speech debate and we want to get those people in as well. I will try to terminate this statement by 2.30 pm, bearing in mind that some 38 Members still wish to ask a question.

Liam Byrne: We are grateful to the Minister for his tireless work, but by his own analysis the aid is not getting through. I commend to him the motion passed by Birmingham City Council last night that calls for an immediate ceasefire binding on all sides, because it is the best way to save the hostages, get aid through, and let the war crimes inspectors do their work. I support that position. I do not think that he does, but could he tell us under what conditions the British Government would shift from a policy of supporting humanitarian pauses to a strategy of supporting an immediate ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain to our friends on Birmingham City Council the reason the Government and indeed his own Front Bench take the view that they do about a ceasefire, but he is right that the critical thing at the moment is to focus on the humanitarian pauses, which are designed to get food to those who need it. Nothing is more important in this context than that.

Patrick Grady: The Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) that he wants the Government of Israel to comply with international human rights law and that he encourages them to do so, but he did not answer my hon. Friend’s question: have the Government made an assessment of whether or not the Government of Israel are complying with international human rights law?

Andrew Mitchell: It is not for the Government to make such an assessment; it is for lawyers and a court to do so. The critical thing is that Britain makes it clear that all countries must abide by international humanitarian law and the rules of war.

Rushanara Ali: Over 10,000 people have already been killed in Gaza in the past month—more than were killed in the 1995 Srebrenica genocide. There are grave concerns that starvation is being used as a weapon of war against 400,000 civilians in the north of Gaza. That is illegal under international law. The UN Secretary-General and a number of others have talked about the need for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and a halt to the spiral of escalation already taking place, from the west bank to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. I recognise the position across the two main parties on a ceasefire, but 120 countries in the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian truce. That has not been achieved either. The Government talk about humanitarian pauses,  yet our Government have abstained on UN resolutions. What are the Government doing to use their influence at the international level to stop the bombardment, so that at the very least aid can get in?

Andrew Mitchell: As I set out in my statement, we are engaged on all those matters and doing everything we can, through Britain’s very strong diplomatic network, which means that we are engaged and connected to almost all the relevant parties in this matter, and that will continue.

Roger Gale: Order. I do have to call upon hon. Members to try to keep their questions brief. I want to accommodate everybody, but at the present rate of lengthy questions it is simply not going to be possible.

Claire Hanna: I thank the Minister for his thoughtful answers. In 1919, seeing children from the defeated Austro-Hungarian empire starving, Eglantyne Jebb established Save the Children. Many people said to her, “How can you help enemy children?” and one of her supporters, the great Irish humanitarian George Bernard Shaw, said:
“I have no enemies under the age of seven.”
Almost half of Palestinians are children, many thousands of whom have been killed, maimed and orphaned. So have many Israeli children, including one dual Irish citizen who is believed to be among the hostages in Gaza. Does the Minister agree with UNICEF’s regional director, Adele Khodr, who says that the situation in Gaza is
“a growing stain on our collective conscience”?

Andrew Mitchell: The head of UNICEF, who made those comments, is right to focus on what is happening in Gaza and to express her abhorrence of what is taking place. On the hon. Lady’s citation of the brilliant work that Save the Children does, I have been intimately connected with Save the Children for the last 20 years and we honour both its work and the success it so often achieves.

Stella Creasy: Everybody wants the bloodshed to stop; the question is how to secure that ambition in a lasting way, not whether we should seek it. For my constituents, that matters not just as a policy for the UK Government, but for the people on the ground, who are our neighbours and directly affected. May I have a few precious moments of the Minister’s time to help to offer them just a crumb of comfort? For 30 days they have not heard anything. Both Oded and Ibrahim are at direct risk of harm due to Hamas and the Israeli missiles. Oded, the father of one of my constituents, was kidnapped by Hamas, and the Prime Minister made a personal pledge to assist him. Ibrahim is at risk because we do not yet know why he and his family have not been able to cross the border at Rafah. May I seek an urgent meeting with the Minister to look specifically at those two cases and to find those rays of light we all desperately want for my constituents?

Andrew Mitchell: In response to the hon. Lady’s request for a meeting, she will know that the crisis centre in the Foreign Office, which is full of both willing volunteers  and experts in these consular matters, will be the right place to take this issue. However, I will certainly meet her immediately after this statement.

Seema Malhotra: A doctor sent a message last night from Gaza saying, “We have worms coming out of wounds even after we do surgeries. Nothing is clean. Nothing is sterile.” It is clear that we need an urgent cessation of hostilities on all sides on humanitarian grounds, because the situation in Gaza is now unspeakable. At the same time, as well as condemning settler violence in the west bank, we need more action to bring an end to it. May I bring the Minister back to a question of accountability under international law, following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott)? Will the Minister confirm that the Government support the independence of the International Criminal Court and recognise its jurisdiction to address the conduct of all parties in Gaza and the west bank?

Andrew Mitchell: We are very strong supporters of the International Criminal Court, and that has been true under Governments from both the main parties. On the hon. Lady’s important point that we need to see an end to settler violence, the Government entirely agree.

Holly Lynch: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) set out in the most powerful way why the deaths and trauma experienced by innocent children in Gaza are utterly intolerable. The supply of basic utilities such as water, medicine, electricity and fuel needed to operate the hospitals in Gaza should not be blocked. It is unacceptable that siege conditions are still being imposed on Gaza by Israel. Can the Minister confirm that he agrees, and what has he done to communicate that to Israel as a matter of urgency?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government at every level are engaged in those discussions with the state of Israel. The hon. Lady lists a number of humanitarian supplies that need to get through, and Britain is at the forefront of the international community in doing everything we can to ensure both that they do get through, and that there are sufficient supplies in the region.

John Martin McDonnell: I will not take up time now, but we will forward the report from Doctor Hassan at the Indonesian hospital in Gaza regarding the treatment of children with no hands and stage 4 burns. However, we must remember that 30 of the hostages are children too. I believe in an immediate ceasefire, but I am willing to clutch at straws as well. Have the Government verified in any form with Qatar the reports that Hamas might be willing to agree a release of civilian hostages for a five-day ceasefire, and have the Government engaged at all with the proposal by the families of hostages for an “all for all” release of hostages for prisoners of Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman is a very senior member of this House and he knows that I cannot give him a running commentary on hostage negotiations. However, I can confirm to him that Qatar has been exceedingly helpful and that releasing the hostages remains at the very top of our list of priorities in this dreadful situation.

Steve McCabe: I hate to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I am not sure we can exactly trade hostages in these conditions. However, does Minister agree that the immediate release of the hostages would go a long way towards enabling the conditions for the kind of humanitarian pause or pauses that we need if we are to deliver aid in the manner and on the scale that we all think is necessary?

Andrew Mitchell: Yes.

Jon Trickett: As a person of Jewish heritage, I was mortified and horrified by what happened on 7 October, but I did not for one second believe that any Palestinian child anywhere was responsible. Yet the Secretary-General of the United Nations has said that Gaza is “a graveyard for children” and that the Israelis are committing war crimes, and has called for humanitarian peace. We helped to create the United Nations. We are permanent members. Is it not time we got behind the Secretary-General, who speaks with great moral authority on these matters, and ourselves called for a ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: The British role at the United Nations is second to none in trying to stop what is happening in Israel and in Palestine. The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that Hamas knew exactly what they were unleashing on that dreadful day of 7 October, and the blame for what has happened should be allocated precisely where it rests.

Zarah Sultana: Gaza used to be described as a “prison camp”—that is what Prime Minister David Cameron called it in 2010. This week the United Nations Secretary-General called it “a graveyard for children”. More than 10,000 Palestinians have been slaughtered in Israel’s assault, nearly half of them children. It would take nearly six hours to read the names and ages of every child killed so far. Yet that horror has been given the green light by this Government. Today I tabled an amendment to the Humble Address calling for an immediate ceasefire, a move backed by 76% of the British public. Will the Government finally do what is right and demand an immediate ceasefire to end the bloodshed?

Andrew Mitchell: While the hon. Lady is eloquent on the effects, she is not so eloquent, in my opinion, on the causes. In respect of the amendment that she has tabled, of course that is a matter for the House, but it will not be supported by the Government, nor by those on her own Front Bench.

Alison Thewliss: Almost 1,200 constituents have been in touch with my office demanding a ceasefire now. Oxfam has said that humanitarian pauses and safe zones are simply not enough to address this humanitarian crisis, and it is far from alone in saying so. Can the Minister explain to my constituents and to Oxfam why he will not support a ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: I will not try your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, by repeating what I have already said. The hon. Lady says that pauses are not enough, but there have not yet been any pauses. That is why we are working so hard to try to achieve them.

Kate Osamor: I thank the Minister for his statement, but how will he ensure that humanitarian aid, which he has assured the House will get to those in Gaza, will actually get there? We are getting reports that there are hospitals in the north that have only 24 hours’ worth of fuel. We are seeing and hearing horrific reports of children dying, and of people trying to work in those horrific circumstances. What are we doing to help those people? It is too much. We are crying; we are upset. It is going on and on. We have statements to the House, but they are not enough. People need to know that we care and that we will make a difference.

Andrew Mitchell: I do not think there is any doubt that, across the House, we care deeply about what is happening there. The hon. Lady asks how we will achieve access for humanitarian aid, and rightly makes the point that it is not getting through in anything like sufficient quantity at the moment. That is why we are doing everything we can, across the international community and the humanitarian sector, to ensure that the pauses are implemented and take place as soon as possible.

Alex Sobel: We are seeing a humanitarian catastrophe of unfathomable depths unfolding among the world’s youngest population. Last week, the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution calling for the
“immediate, full, sustained, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access”
for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, as well as an
“immediate and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities”.
The United Kingdom abstained. The resolution was supported by France, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, New Zealand and 115 other nations. Why did the UK abstain? If a similar resolution comes again, will the UK vote for it? Does the UK support Pedro Sanchez, who put a motion before the European Council calling for a peace conference after the conflict has finished? Does the UK join that call?

Andrew Mitchell: If another motion comes before the United Nations, Britain will of course look at the terms of that motion and discuss it together with our allies and like-minded countries who, like the hon. Gentleman, want to see an end to these dreadful circumstances. In respect of the last motion and Britain’s decision not to oppose it but to abstain, he will have seen the reasons set out by the Government. For any new motion put before the United Nations, we will vote in the way that we think is best in these dreadful circumstances.

Clive Efford: The Secretary of State has said that he is discussing with partners how to increase the amount of aid going into Gaza, and that humanitarian pauses must be part of that, but how long must a humanitarian pause be to live up to that name? Infrastructure needs to be repaired, and an enormous amount of aid needs to be shifted, in a very short time. Is there consensus with those partners on how long a humanitarian pause has to be?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but these matters are the subject of intensive negotiations at this time.

Sarah Owen: We know that multiple respected humanitarian organisations on the ground in Gaza and Israel have called for a ceasefire of all parties. We know that, historically, ceasefires break down and are maintained again only with international support and pressure, so how many horrors and deaths do the Government believe we must see before that pressure comes from the international community? If, as he said, the Minister believes that multiple humanitarian pauses are achievable on all sides, when will that hope be transferred to a permanent, lasting ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: Although it is not the policy of the Government or Opposition Front Benchers to call for a ceasefire, we are calling for comprehensive humanitarian pauses to enable us to reach civilians in the desperate circumstances that the hon. Lady describes.

Stephen Farry: I concur with the calls for a ceasefire. Since 7 October, an estimated 39 journalists have been killed in the conflict. That makes it the most deadly month for journalists in almost 30 years. What more can the Government do to stress to the Israeli Government the importance of safety for journalists and their safe access? Accurate reporting on this is crucial.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to raise the point about the number of journalists who have sadly lost their lives. Many very brave journalists are in the area trying to ensure that we get accurate reporting of what is going on there—they risk their lives in that respect. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Foreign Secretary, he specifically implemented a number of changes to try to defend journalists who were caught up in those sorts of difficulties, and the British Government strongly support the work that he set in train.

Jim McMahon: In the scale of human suffering in the 7 October attack and the offensive in Gaza, we are drawn to that of the children who have been killed or injured, and who continue to suffer. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), has asked the Government to provide for a co-ordinator for aid to be appointed. Will the Government meet that request?

Andrew Mitchell: We are certainly considering that as the situation evolves, but for the moment, there are many specialists fulfilling a series of different purposes and different work in connection with the international situation.

Janet Daby: The human suffering in Gaza is unimaginable, and a humanitarian pause for aid is desperately needed to save lives. The UK has played a unique historical role, so what steps are the Government taking to support UNICEF and others in protecting the million innocent children in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: UNICEF is one of the most highly respected United Nations organisations and agencies. Britain has consistently been one of the most generous and strong supporters of UNICEF, precisely because of  the effectiveness of that organisation. The hon. Lady may rest assured that we will work closely with UNICEF throughout this period, and that we profoundly respect the abilities and reach that UNICEF brings to its work.

Andrew Slaughter: Yesterday a mother and five children—all UK citizens in my constituency—finally made it out of Gaza, having experienced sights that no child should witness, literally walking past hundreds of dismembered and decaying bodies to reach safety. If war crimes are committed, they should be investigated. Will the Minister answer the question that he has deftly avoided so far: is there a role for the International Criminal Court in investigating the conduct of all parties to this terrible war?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not think it fair to say that I was avoiding the question. I was making the point, which I know the hon. Gentleman will understand, that Britain was one of the first countries to support the ICC—it was not supported by Russia, China or America, as I recall—so Britain’s support and enthusiasm for the work of the ICC should not be in doubt.

Fleur Anderson: It is heartbreaking to hear of the fear and terror that caused 1.5 million people in Gaza to be displaced. Does the Minister agree that, for the 1.5 million Palestinians who had to flee, the right to return to their homes is vital for long-term peace, especially given the history in the region? Has the Minister raised that in his diplomatic meetings, and what response has he received?

Andrew Mitchell: We all hope that, eventually, the position in Gaza will be radically different from what it is today, and that the two-state solution will be implemented. The two-state solution means that Israel is able to live behind secure borders and the state of Palestine emerges, so the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is a fairly qualified yes.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his clear commitment to looking out for the innocent in Israel and Gaza and to finding solutions—it is clear that that is what he wants to do. It is understood that the Egyptian Government have opened the Rafah crossing for dual nationals to vacate the Gaza strip, and many have already taken advantage of that. What steps will the Government take to ensure that British dual nationals are guaranteed safe passage via the crossing to get back to the UK for a much-loved reunion with their families?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—he always speaks for the House on humanitarian matters. More than 150 British nationals have now come out, and all our country-based staff and dependents were out by last night. There are 32 British nationals who are waiting for clearance, and 48 British nationals who have been cleared and who were waiting to come across when this statement started. That is the current position, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use the MPs’ hotline to the crisis centre for any of his constituents who are caught up in this, so that we can give him the most accurate information available.

Rachel Hopkins: The charity Medical Aid for Palestinians has warned that people are struggling to find food and water and meet their basic needs, and that even the minimal humanitarian aid that  has been allowed in is unable to be distributed fully, due to the damaged roads and lack of fuel for trucks. The north of Gaza is basically receiving no aid at all, so can the Minister set out how the Government are working with international partners to ensure that urgent fuel and humanitarian supplies are not only getting into Gaza, but throughout it, to help those in desperate need?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady rightly draws a distinction between getting humanitarian supplies into Gaza and being able to distribute them safely. These are very challenging circumstances, for the reasons I have set out to the House, but she may rest assured that the international humanitarian community is doing everything it can to address them.

Diana R. Johnson: The World Health Organisation estimates that there are 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza, with an average of 180 giving birth every day without access to obstetric services and, of course, babies being born into a war zone. Can the Minister outline what work is going on to make sure that humanitarian aid is getting to those pregnant women, new mums and babies?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Lady describes an extremely difficult situation, one that has been ventilated in the press, where we have seen that women are having to give birth in the most hideous of circumstances. What I can say to her is that if we are able to get aid in, we have specific humanitarian aid and support for mothers of babies—for mothers who have just given birth—and when we are able to get access in that respect, we will do everything we can to meet that need.

Munira Wilson: Thousands of children are dead. Many more are traumatised, millions are being starved, and as we have heard, the UN has described Gaza as becoming a “graveyard for children”. We all agree that Israel has the right to respond to the senseless and brutal attack of 7 October, but many of us, including hundreds of my constituents, believe that this response is utterly disproportionate. With the UN, the WHO, and the lead prosecutor of the ICC warning of breaches of international law, will the Minister explain to the House what it will take for his Government to stand up to Netanyahu and his extremist Ministers and make clear that this abject suffering simply cannot, and must not, continue?

Andrew Mitchell: Because we are strongly supportive of Israel’s right to self-defence—we have been absolutely clear about that throughout these dreadful circumstances, as have the Opposition—we are able to have clear and firm discussions with the Prime Minister of Israel, and that is what we do.

Andrew Gwynne: I abhor the loss of all innocent civilian life. Dead innocent Israeli men, women and children and dead innocent Palestinian men, women and children have this in common: they are innocent civilians, and they are dead. This vicious cycle of killing must stop. As we are here to talk about the humanitarian situation, I remind the House that the Prime Minister told us before Prorogation that he would use British logistical capacity to get hundreds  of aid lorries a day—rather than the tens that were crossing at the time—across the Rafah crossing. By when do we expect that target to be met?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman speaks for everyone in the House when he abhors the loss of life among innocent civilians. On the humanitarian situation, he has referred to what the Prime Minister said before Prorogation. What the Prime Minister said is absolutely correct: Britain has not only been supplying humanitarian provisions into el-Arish so that they can go through Rafah when circumstances permit but has provided heavy lift materials so that others, as well as us, can move those supplies towards Rafah when they are able to get through. What the Prime Minister told the House is what everyone, not just Britain, is trying to achieve.

Margaret Greenwood: I thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the work they have done to help facilitate the safe departure from Gaza of my constituent, Mr Abdel Hammad. Mr Hammad was in Gaza to perform kidney transplant operations as a charity volunteer with the Liverpool International Transplant Initiative. I pay tribute to his many years of humanitarian work in this field.
As we know, there have been thousands of deaths in this terrible conflict, so will the Minister urgently press all parties to agree to an immediate de-escalation and cessation of hostilities, and will he do all he can to bring about a peaceful resolution to this devastating conflict?

Andrew Mitchell: In respect of the hon. Lady’s last point, I am not sure I can add to what I have already told the House, but I am very relieved to hear about her constituent. I will pass on her thanks to both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

Cat Smith: The only route to long-term peace is a two-state solution. The Minister has said in response to other questions that Gaza will look radically different at the end of this conflict, but can he commit to making representations to his Israeli counterparts that all those displaced in Gaza will be able to return?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady rightly identifies the importance of getting back to the two-state solution, which is the policy of the British Government and has repeatedly been the policy of British Governments. She may rest assured that Britain, along with its allies, is absolutely focused on the wellbeing of the people of Gaza and their future. It is very important to make clear that Hamas is not the Palestinians.

Richard Burgon: To tackle this humanitarian crisis, we need to strain every sinew for a ceasefire. The UN Secretary-General says that we need a ceasefire, one binding on all sides. The UN high commissioner for human rights also says that we need a ceasefire; so, too, do the heads of the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN Children’s Fund, UN Women, the UN World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation. In fact, the heads of all major United Nations agencies are  calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. Why do this Government think that they know better than the world’s leading humanitarian agencies?

Andrew Mitchell: Again, I am not sure that I can add to the very comprehensive and full answer that I have already given the House on that point, but let me make clear that it is not the policy of either the Government or the Opposition to call for a ceasefire, for the reasons I have set out. However, all of us across the House are engaged in trying to bring these dreadful events to a close.

Sharon Hodgson: I agree that the need for humanitarian pauses is urgent. With that in mind, what discussions are the Government having with regional partners, especially Egypt, to ensure that the Rafah crossing will allow for many more people to leave Gaza much more quickly? Further to that, can the Minister assure the House that when it is safe to do so, those people will be able to return quickly and safely?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for her support for humanitarian pauses. She can rest assured that we are having detailed discussions with all our regional partners. In respect of Egypt, which she mentioned specifically, I had a discussion yesterday at around midday with the Egyptian ambassador.

Gavin Newlands: In depriving the civilian population of Gaza of water, food, medicine and power, combined with the forced relocation of civilians, not respecting the sanctity of hospitals—indeed, bombing or threatening to bomb hospitals—and targeting civilian infrastructure including refugee camps, Israel has broken articles 3, 18, 23, 33 and 47 of the Geneva conventions. What exactly do the Israel Defence Forces have to do before this Government call out Israel for its war crimes?

Andrew Mitchell: I would not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, in his question, of the Geneva convention, but when he talks about the need for water, food and medicines, he may rest assured that Britain is focused very much on those supplies in its humanitarian efforts.

Paula Barker: In 2014, a six-hour pause made way for a three-day pause before a ceasefire. This House must be on the right side of history, and I absolutely respect the Minister for the time and the tone of the statement today. However, does he agree that, for lasting peace, we must inevitably reach the point of a ceasefire, even after humanitarian pauses? Will he assure me that he will press for that with our international partners to ensure that we have lasting peace in the region?

Andrew Mitchell: In spite of the hon. Lady’s very generous comments, I cannot agree with her, for the reasons I have set out, about calling now for a ceasefire, but I hope she will feel that the intention of the Government, along with our partners, in respect of humanitarian pauses is moving in the right direction.

Justin Madders: I understand the need for Israel to act to free the hostages and deal with Hamas, although the images we see and the number of children who have been killed  can sometimes seem a very distant way away from those objectives. On the latter of those aims, in relation to Hamas’s capacity, I would like to know how the UK Government will judge whether that objective has been reached and whether we have reached a point when we say to Israel that that is enough?

Andrew Mitchell: I recognise that the hon. Member is being supportive in saying that the purpose of the Israeli Government is to free the hostages and deal with Hamas. I am sure this will not be the only occasion when I come to the House to give a statement about both the humanitarian position and also the position throughout Gaza.

Joanna Cherry: When so many children are being horribly maimed and killed, it really is not naive to call for a ceasefire. That is why so many international voices are calling for a ceasefire, including my friends at the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. They have done that against the background of an assessment that the rules of international humanitarian law have not only been broken by Hamas, but may be being broken by the Israeli Government.
I was very disappointed to hear that the UK Government have not carried out an assessment of whether international humanitarian law is being obeyed on the ground in Gaza. This matters terribly to my constituents, many hundreds of whom have written to me about it. May I suggest to the Minister that if the UK Government fulfilled their obligation to carry out an assessment of whether international humanitarian law is being obeyed on the ground in Gaza, that might change both the UK Government’s mind and the mind of the official Opposition, and make them support a ceasefire now?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. and learned Lady is a distinguished lawyer, and she will know that the judgment she is asking the Government to make is not a judgment for Ministers and politicians, but a judgment for lawyers in respect of international law, so I fear that I am not in a position, as a Minister, to give a direct answer to her question.

Florence Eshalomi: I want to thank the Minister for the way he has conducted himself this afternoon, listening to the wide range of concerns from right hon. and hon. Members. My prayers and thoughts remain with the hostages, who have been kidnapped for over 30 days now. They have to be released safely and urgently.
I have received so many emails from constituents who are really concerned about the ongoing humanitarian situation in Gaza. I recently met Islamic Relief UK, which is based in my Vauxhall constituency, and it shared with me the harrowing story of one of its aid workers on the ground:
“None of us has proper food, we’re struggling to find water and we have no electricity. Humanitarian assistance is not being allowed into Gaza and I fear people will starve here.”
That is a quote from an Islamic Relief staff member in Gaza who fled south with his family. These calls are real, and these calls are being made now. People are in desperate need of help. People are facing a major crisis. What more will the Minister and this Government do to  make sure they are speaking to their Israeli counterparts to ensure that that pause is real and that it comes now, so we can get in urgent assistance and do not see more innocent civilians dying?

Andrew Mitchell: I think the hon. Lady speaks for the House about the importance of achieving the humanitarian pauses, which have been greatly mentioned over the last hour and a half. I say to her that I know those at Islamic Relief extremely well, and I have visited them in her constituency. They do fantastic work, and we all honour and respect them for that. In her question, she talked about the importance of releasing the hostages and addressing humanitarian concern. Those two things are at the heart of what the House has been discussing today, and I thank her for ending this session on a constructive note.

Roger Gale: At the start of the statement, I expressed the hope that the House would rise to the occasion, and I have not been disappointed. I particularly thank the Minister for the courtesy he has brought and the time he has given to this session.

Bills Presented

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)
Secretary Michelle Donelan, supported by Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Steve Barclay, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, George Freeman, Julia Lopez, Sir John Whittingdale, Paul Scully and Alex Burghart, presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the processing of information relating to identified or identifiable living individuals; to make provision about services consisting of the use of information to ascertain and verify facts about individuals; to make provision about access to customer data and business data; to make provision about privacy and electronic communications; to make provision about services for the provision of electronic signatures, electronic seals and other trust services; to make provision about the disclosure of information to improve public service delivery; to make provision for the implementation of agreements on sharing information for law enforcement purposes; to make provision about the keeping and maintenance of registers of births and deaths; to make provision about information standards for health and social care; to establish the Information Commission; to make provision about oversight of biometric data; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 17 April); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 1) with explanatory notes (Bill 1-EN).

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)
Secretary Alex Chalk, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Steve Barclay, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, Secretary Mark Harper, the Attorney General, Edward Argar and Miss Sarah Dines, presented a Bill to make provision about victims of criminal conduct and others  affected by criminal conduct; about the appointment and functions of individuals to act as independent public advocates for victims of major incidents; about the release of prisoners; about the membership and functions of the Parole Board; to prohibit certain prisoners from forming a marriage or civil partnership; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 15 May); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 2) with explanatory notes (Bill 2-EN).

Digital Markets, Competition and  Consumers Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)
Secretary Kemi Badenoch, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Lucy Frazer, Kevin Hollinrake, Paul Scully, Gareth Davies, Julia Lopez and Sir John Whittingdale, presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of competition in digital markets; to amend the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 and to make other provision about competition law; to make provision relating to the protection of consumer rights and to confer further such rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 17 May); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 3) with explanatory notes (Bill 3-EN).

Renters (Reform) Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)
Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Mel Stride, Secretary Lucy Frazer and Rachel Maclean, presented a Bill to make provision changing the law about rented homes, including provision abolishing fixed term assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; imposing obligations on landlords and others in relation to rented homes and temporary and supported accommodation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put and committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 23 October); to be printed (Bill 4) with explanatory notes (Bill 4-EN).

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)
Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, Oliver Dowden, Robert Jenrick, Robert Halfon, Stuart Andrew and Felicity Buchan, presented a Bill to make provision to prevent public bodies from being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign states when taking certain economic decisions, subject to certain exceptions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 3 July); to be read the Third time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 5) with explanatory notes (Bill 5-EN).

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)
Secretary Mark Harper, supported by the Prime Minister, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, presented a Bill to make provision for a railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and Manchester Piccadilly Station; for a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put and committed to a Select Committee (20 June 2022); to be printed (Bill 6) with explanatory notes (Bill 6-EN).

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)
Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, Secretary Gillian Keegan and Secretary Lucy Frazer, presented a Bill to make provision for expenditure by the Secretary of State and the removal of restrictions in respect of certain land for or in connection with the construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put and committed to a Select Committee (Order, 28 June); to be printed (Bill 7) with explanatory notes (Bill 7-EN).

Media Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Lucy Frazer, supported by Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T. C. Davies, John Glen and Sir John Whittingdale, presented a Bill to make provision about public service television; about the sustainability of, and programme-making by, C4C; about the name, remit, powers, governance and audit of S4C; about the regulation of television selection services; about the regulation of on-demand programme services; about the regulation of radio services; about the regulation of radio selection services; for the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013; for addressing deficiencies in broadcasting legislation arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 8) with explanatory notes (Bill 8-EN).

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Claire Coutinho, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, Secretary Mark Harper, Secretary Alister Jack, John Glen and Graham Stuart, presented a Bill to make provision about licences to search and bore for and get offshore petroleum.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 9) with explanatory notes (Bill 9-EN).

Debate on the Address

[2nd Day]

Debate resumed (Order, 7 November).
Question again proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity

Gillian Keegan: It is an honour to open today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government.
Education is the key that unlocks the door to opportunity. Get it right, and it is the single most transformative thing that any Government can do. That is why this Conservative Government have spent the last 13 years doing just that. We have been taking the long-term decisions to ensure that the next generation have a brighter future, because we know what happens when Governments get it wrong—[Interruption.] When we started this journey in 2010—Opposition Members are going to like this—we inherited Labour’s legacy. It was a legacy defined by politicians saying, “Education, education, education” but failing to deliver. The results speak for themselves. At that time, more than a fifth of children left primary school without achieving basic levels of literacy and numeracy, and two fifths finished full-time education without even the bare minimum qualifications. That failure entrenched inequality and locked the door of opportunity. The education system worked against children from places like where I grew up in Knowsley. It was a system that widened the gap between the richest and the poorest in society.
Politicians often say that talent is everywhere but opportunity is not, and they are right. I know that, because I lived it. My failing comprehensive school left many of my classmates without those precious opportunities. Although some came to education later, many others never did—so much so that some are now in prison and others sadly have died many years before their time. It did not have to be this way. For five years, I sat next to those children. We all thought we had a bright future ahead of us, as children often do, but sadly that was not the case for too many of them. Education is about removing the barriers to opportunity and the belief that talent is everywhere. It is about the growth in confidence that our teachers inspire and the understanding that if the playing field is levelled, no one’s dream will be out of reach. That is what this Government are delivering, from the moment someone enters this world until they retire.

Munira Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Gillian Keegan: Let me make some progress before I take interventions.
Earlier this year, we announced the largest ever investment in childcare in England’s history. Very soon, we will be spending £8 billion a year. That investment will ensure that every child gets the best start in life. It means that working parents will be entitled to 30 hours of free childcare from the end of parental leave until their child starts school. To give parents the flexibility they need, we are rolling out universal wraparound childcare for primary school children from 8 am to 6 pm. These Conservative policies will end the choice that some working mums and dads feel they need to make between having a family and having a career, and it will save parents up to £6,500 a year.[Official Report, 21 November 2023, Vol. 741, c. 3MC.]
The generation having children now will not remember what was on offer under Labour, but let me remind the House: 13 years of Labour delivered only 12.5 hours of free childcare for some three and four-year-olds. That is less than one hour for every year in office. Our childcare package gives people wanting to start a family the confidence to do so. May I invite the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), when she stands at the Dispatch Box, to finally offer Labour’s support for our record childcare investment? Can she tell hard-working parents in Wales why her party is not rolling out the same support that English parents will benefit from?
I know that the right hon. Lady, like me, did not grow up with privilege. I have heard her speak eloquently and passionately about the help and support she received from Sure Start, and I know she was grateful for that support. I am sure there were many positives from that programme—indeed, my best friend used to run a Sure Start centre—but there were also some serious failings in the design and delivery. First, Sure Start was not a universal offer, and it stigmatised people who used the services. Plus, it only helped families for the first five years of a child’s life, but any parent will say that challenges can arise at any time. [Interruption.] This is important: the National Audit Office found that Sure Start had failed to target the most disadvantaged families and was even unable to identify families needing support in the most disadvantaged 30% of communities. It simply did not reach the right people.
When we launched our family hubs programme, we ensured that the hubs provided a service to anyone who needed it. They are supporting families with everything from mental health to breastfeeding, and housing and debt services—challenges that many of us need support with. The service is universal, available to anyone. Family hubs support families with children of all ages, from conception to 19, or up to 25 for those with special educational needs. They join up services, ensuring that every family gets the right support at the right time. As part of that, the best start for life programme provides focused support during the crucial first 1,001 days of a child’s life, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for her work to get that right.
Before I talk about how we have transformed our schools, I will address one of the key challenges we face in delivering opportunity: school attendance.

Munira Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Gillian Keegan: I will in a moment, honestly, but this is important. I want to address one of the key challenges we face, which is school attendance. Following the  pandemic, we have seen a phenomenon where more children are staying home and not going to school. That challenge is not unique to the UK. At the G7, my counterparts from the US to Japan were all grappling with the same issue. I reassure the House that it is a top priority. We are making progress through our attendance hubs and mentoring programmes, as well as more specialised support for key cohorts, such as those with mental health issues or special educational needs. In just the past year, 380,000 fewer children are persistently absent, and we will keep driving at this issue until all our children are back in school.
I notice that the Labour party had a lot to say about attendance this morning, but the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) may have missed the 380,000 fewer children persistently absent in the past year. Yet again, Labour offers little more than empty words, with a touch of student politics. In Labour-run Wales, attendance rates are still far behind those in England. Last year’s attendance data showed that Wales only managed an attendance rate of 85.5%, compared with England’s 92.5%.[Official Report, 21 November 2023, Vol. 741, c. 4MC.] That means that English children are benefiting from well over a week more education than those just over the border. I advise the Labour party to spend a little less time playing politics, and more time helping children. The children of Wales deserve better.

Munira Wilson: I thank the Education Secretary very much for giving way. What was crystal clear from the King’s Speech yesterday was that, despite her grandiose statements here, education is not a priority for this Government. There were two re-announcements, nothing new and no new legislation, and her speech so far is revisiting old announcements, which is shocking, considering the crisis in our schools and colleges. She talks about persistent absence, so can she explain to the House why there was no announcement yesterday about bringing forward legislation for a “children not in school” register, which Ministers promised to do when they scrapped the Schools Bill in the last Session?

Gillian Keegan: The progress we have made on education is phenomenal. The legislation we have put in place has enabled us to make many of these improvements, but we remain committed to legislating to take forward the “children not in school” measures, and we will progress those at a suitable future legislative opportunity. We continue to work with local authorities to improve the non-statutory registers, and have launched a consultation on revised elective home education guidance. There is a lot of work going on. The consultation is open until 18 January 2024, and we intend to bring forward that legislation.

Hywel Williams: This is a King’s Speech for the UK generally. Does the Secretary of State intend to say anything positive at all about Wales today?

Gillian Keegan: As somebody who grew up in Liverpool, I have had many a fabulous holiday in north Wales. In terms of the education department, unfortunately Wales suffers from a poor Administration.
Let us move on to schools. Nowhere is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives clearer to see than in our school system. When we came into office, Labour had overseen a decade of decline in our schools. Fortunately, thanks to the tireless work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and, notably, that of the Minister for Schools, we have reversed that trajectory. Today, 88% of our schools are “good” or “outstanding”—up from just 68% under Labour.
By the end of the Labour era, we had plummeted down the international league tables: our children were ranked 25th for reading and 27th for maths. Now, we are up 10 places in both. Better still, the progress in international reading literacy study shows that when it comes to reading, English primary school children are the best in the west, coming fourth in the world—an amazing, phenomenal achievement, for which I thank our teachers, parents and children.
How have we done this? We have reformed the school system, putting teachers and experts—not politicians—in charge of schools. Through our free schools and academies programmes, we have empowered heads and focused on academic excellence, improving discipline and ensuring that schools are calmer, happier places to learn. We have built on the evidence, not the ideology, over the past decade.
The Education Endowment Foundation has carried out over 200 evaluations to understand which approaches are the most effective in closing the attainment gap. It has engaged 23,000 nurseries, schools and colleges and, as a result, teachers are better trained in the things that make a difference, and children are taught in ways that we can prove work, such as phonics and maths mastery. We have made our exams more rigorous and reliable; and we have changed how we teach for the better. And at every turn we were met with a barrage of opposition from the opportunists on the Labour Benches.
In 2011, the Opposition said that our literacy drive was “dull”. In 2012, they said that phonics would “not improve reading”. In 2013, they called free schools “dangerous”. All three accusations have been categorically proven wrong. Our results simply speak for themselves, and we are not stopping there. Our new advanced British standard will remove the artificial divide between academic and technical education, and place the two on an equal footing, bringing together the very best of A-levels and T-levels to form a single overarching qualification. Right on cue, what did Labour call this? A “gimmick”. Given Labour’s track record, that condemnation is a very good sign that we are on the right track.
The advanced British standard will ensure that every child studies a form of maths and English until they are 18, and equip our children with the skills they need for the future. They will be entering a very different workplace—one where artificial intelligence, and quantum and digital systems, are a big part of every working day—and they will be competing for the top jobs internationally, so we will be increasing the time spent in the classroom, bringing us more in line with other countries, including Denmark, Norway, France and the US.

Sarah Dyke: The Government’s disregard for school pupils with special educational needs has never been clearer. The silent  assassination of any new mental health Act has let down my constituents, who are struggling to get a diagnosis and to get continuous support in schools. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that pupils and schools urgently need new legislation?

Gillian Keegan: We published our special educational needs and alternative provision improvement plan in March 2023—the hon. Lady may have missed that as she was not yet in her place—and we have backed the plan with investment of £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025. That will fund new and alternative provision places, and it is also a significant investment in the high-needs budget. We know that we need to invest in improving the special educational needs and alternative provision system, and I am happy to go through that plan with her.

Emma Hardy: The Secretary of State’s plans to increase maths teaching up to 18 are interesting. I wonder how she expects to deliver that when there is currently a shortfall of over 5,000 maths teachers and the retention of maths teachers is at an all-time low. How does she think she can deliver maths teachers to increase maths education when she cannot deliver enough for children up to the age of 16?

Gillian Keegan: We have some initiatives in place. First, we are raising the starting salary to £30,000 for all new teachers across the country, and more in London. Secondly, we are increasing—in fact doubling—the premium we pay to maths, computer science and some science teachers to enable them to earn more. That is the plan. We are also updating our retention and recruitment strategy before the end of the year.
Anyone who wants a blueprint for a Labour Government does not need to look back to the ’90s and early-2000s, when Labour oversaw a decade of decline. No, they should look to Wales. After a quarter of a century running the education system in Wales, the Labour Administration preside over the worst-performing education authority in the UK. While in England we have increased the number of teachers by 27,000, the numbers have fallen in Wales. While our standards rise, Wales consistently has the worst results for maths and reading in the UK. Those are facts. Even before the pandemic, the head of the OECD said that the Welsh education system had not just “underperformed” but “seen its performance decline”. There is nothing that stifles opportunity more than an education system in decline under Labour.

Stephen Doughty: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Gillian Keegan: I will in a second. We believe in the values that I have talked about—aspiration, standards and rigour—precisely because they deliver a brighter future for our young people, and one that means that, as they grow into adulthood, they can be sure that they are getting the skills they need to succeed in life, to get a good job and to earn a good wage. That is the purpose of education: to help ensure that we have the skills to prosper and that every young person can reach their potential.

Stephen Doughty: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Gillian Keegan: I will; just give me a second. The hon. Gentleman might want to answer this point. One thing that Labour did do was set an arbitrary target of 50% of young people going to university—a policy that favoured the most advantaged in society and only widened the gap. Today, under the Conservatives, children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are 71% more likely to go to university than when we took office.
Let me be clear: university is a brilliant choice. For many, it will be the best thing they ever do—life-changing—and a degree will be the first step on a wonderful career journey. But for some, in a minority of cases, it will be a ticket to nowhere, saddling students with debt and no prospects.

Stephen Doughty: As a Welsh MP, I think that learners and teachers in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth would be shocked to hear the Secretary of State denigrate their work and efforts. The reality on the ground in Wales is that, in my constituency, I have seen new brand-new schools at Eastern High and Penarth Learning Community, and a brand-new further education college. We are also just opening a brand-new school in Fitzalan. They have all had significant issues with performance in the past, but have turned things around thanks to the dedication of their teachers and the support they have had from Welsh Labour councils and the Welsh Government. Will the Secretary of State apologise for denigrating and running down Wales?

Gillian Keegan: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. I always want things to improve in Wales, and I very much care about the Welsh children. It is not my words; it is the OECD and the international league tables—which I believe they have actually withdrawn from now because they do not want the scrutiny. We have to be open and transparent and put ourselves forward for international scrutiny, and that is where these words are coming from.

Emma Hardy: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Gillian Keegan: I will give way one more time to the hon. Lady.

Emma Hardy: The Secretary of State is being generous. I was interested in her comments about some university degrees not being of high value. I wonder how she seeks to calculate whether those degrees are not worth the same as others. Does she intend to use the longitudinal educational outcomes data that looks at average earnings? Does she acknowledge that children who wish to stay in areas such as Hull will earn less because wages are lower in certain areas, and that that has nothing to do with the degree? Would she reflect on the presentation given to the Treasury Committee recently, which said that outcomes in life and how successful someone is in terms of job and income are everything to do with their parents’ background and not the background or anything to do with the university that that person attended?

Gillian Keegan: I am happy to come to that later. I am concerned about ensuring that children and young people in Knowsley, Manchester, Hull, Blyth, Teesside and all over the country get fantastic opportunities, so that their earnings rise. That is what we in this party will continue to do.

Jeremy Corbyn: Before the Secretary of State moves on to what I assume will be higher education, I want to raise with her a serious problem particularly in inner-city schools in England: falling rolls and, therefore, falling income to the school, which usually means the loss of teaching assistant jobs and all sorts of other issues. This issue has affected rural areas a lot in the past, and special arrangements have been made. Is the Secretary of State aware of that? Is she considering what can be done to ameliorate this very serious problem, which damages the life chances of so many inner-city children?

Gillian Keegan: The right hon. Gentleman made a good point. Local authorities usually work with us to capacity plan for demographic changes, which often happen from time to time—they go up and down. When we were first elected in 2010, we had to find 1 million more school places because the previous Administration had failed to do so. In some London inner-city schools, the pandemic has changed that more rapidly. We are looking at that and the impact that it has had on rural schools, as some have increases in demand. We are aware of that and we will work with schools on it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question.
In a minority of cases, higher education could be a ticket to ride to nowhere, saddling students with debt and no prospects. That is bad for students, the taxpayer and the reputation of our universities, many of which are truly exceptional and admired all over the world. A meaningless and arbitrary target of 50% of students going to university focuses on the wrong thing: quantity over quality. That is why this Government introduced new powers to clamp down on rip-off degrees—something the Opposition claimed was an attack on aspiration. That could not be further from the truth.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) may want to listen to this point, because it directly answers her question. Average earnings for computing graduates five years after graduation can vary from £23,000—barely above the minimum wage—to £85,000, depending on the university. Students who choose computing probably listen to their parents and have thought about their future career. They think that they have made a wise and smart choice. The attack on aspiration would be to let the next generation spend their time and money, only to end up with a degree that does not help them to achieve their goals. Those who lose out from low-quality courses are not the universities but the young people who have been sold a false dream. Many of us will know those young people. Defending that is a short-sighted and, quite frankly, snobbish mindset that fails the very people whose education it is meant to help.
I make no apologies for this Government’s commitment to high-quality education, whether at school, college or university. We have already announced that we will introduce recruitment limits to reduce the quota of low-quality courses and account for earnings as part of the quality regime, so that students know that they will get value for money and a return on their investment. I will make no apologies for our work promoting apprenticeships and technical education as an equally valid route. I know how transformational a good technical education can be: it got me to where I am today. As the only degree apprentice in the House of Commons, I will  always champion high-quality technical education. It changed my life and it has the power to change many more.
As Conservatives, we will always work to break down the barriers to opportunity. Today, there are more options to access high-quality technical education than ever before, but that has not always been the case. Under Labour, T-levels did not exist. Under Labour, high technical qualifications did not exist. Degree apprenticeships for jobs such as lawyers, accountants and space engineers did not exist. Skills bootcamps did not exist. The lifelong learning entitlement did not exist. Institutes of technology did not exist. Why? They were all introduced by this Conservative Government.
In case Opposition Members are confused about what institutes of technology are, let me tell them: they bring together education and business, providing skills in everything from aerospace to agriculture, and energy to engineering. Does that sound familiar? It should do; Labour’s big new policy of technical excellence colleges is, effectively, little more than a rebrand of something that already exists. We have already delivered it. Once again, Labour demonstrates that it has no new ideas. It has had 13 years to come up with an original idea, and has failed even that.
Apprenticeships are not a new idea, as demonstrated by the fact that I did one many more years ago than I care to admit. What is new is that people can become a doctor, lawyer, account or space engineer. They can take degree apprenticeships in the NHS, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Amazon, KPMG, PwC—the list goes on. Any career they aspire to, anywhere, they can do now via an apprenticeship. In fact, there are now  more than 680 standards, including 170 degree-level apprenticeships, all developed hand in glove with more than 5,000 employers, none of which existed under the Labour Government. Anyone doing one of those apprenticeships today is doing it because of the work of this Conservative Government.
Since 2010, we have seen 5.5 million people benefit from those apprenticeships. We want to support even more people to access these life-changing opportunities, which are now on UCAS. From next year, young people will be able to apply for them alongside undergraduate courses. My apprenticeship was my golden ticket. Today, thanks to this Government, millions more people are being offered the same opportunity. Hopefully, many future Secretaries of State will sit here, having gone through that fantastic route.
It is not just the younger generation who need opportunities. We are all living and working longer. Many of us will have a second career, including me—this is my chosen second career. For me, politics came after three decades working in international business. Like me, many people will want to change. Often, that will require new skills. Some 80% of the 2030 workforce are already in work today. We know that we need more people with new skills, unlocking new opportunities. That is why we launched skills bootcamps. These are free, flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, training people with an offer of a job interview at the end. They support people to gain skills in key sectors such as digital, HGV driving, civil engineering, electric vehicle charging installation or as a wind technician. Often, they are the first step into a brand-new career. Our new lifelong learning entitlement also removes barriers to gaining  new skills later in life. People will have real choice about how and when they study, enabling them to acquire life-changing skills to improve their employment prospects. Both those programmes will give people the chance to transform their lives totally at any stage and any age.
This Government have been defined by our relentless drive to spread opportunity through better education. Yesterday, the King’s Speech continued that legacy. Today is the perfect time to take stock of the impact of those reforms. Those who entered school in 2010 are the first generation of children educated under this Conservative Government. They will take their A-levels and T-levels this summer, and their future is brighter than ever before. Standards of reading are higher, standards of writing are higher, and standards of maths are higher. The next generation are coming through, and their potential and their achievements are higher than ever before.
Let us never forget how the Labour party left us with an education system in decline—as, unfortunately, it continues to be in Wales. Labour left us with a limited childcare offer, declining standards in schools, poor technical education and an arbitrary target of 50% of kids going to university. And we know why: because they are political opportunists with empty words and meaningless promises, which will inevitably change.
That is the difference between us: Conservatives deliver. We have delivered the most generous childcare package in our country’s history; we have delivered the highest school funding ever; we have delivered more high-quality technical education than any other Government; and we have delivered for adults looking to learn new skills. As Conservatives, we do more than break the barriers to opportunity; we take the long-term decisions to create opportunity. Now and in the future, every child will benefit from a world-class education because of the decisions made by this Conservative Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, let me say that we have a packed speakers list. I do not want to introduce a time limit, but if Members could think of each other and confine their remarks to seven or eight minutes to start with, that would be very helpful. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

Angela Rayner: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I just say well done to the Education Secretary for the level of creativity and imagination in her opening remarks?
In opening this debate on behalf of the Opposition, Iusb want to offer a note of optimism after the miserable vision for this country’s future presented by the Government. Britain is crying out for lasting change that will see the ambition of our young people harnessed, the drive of our businesses rewarded, and the aspiration that exists around every kitchen table fully realised.
We promise our children and grandchildren that if they work hard, they will be able to get on, no matter what their background. We tell them that with enough  graft, everyone has the opportunity to build a good life around what they do best and love most. But opportunity is built on security, so that people can live without fear that they might be evicted or lose their job for no good reason at all. It is built on the foundation of a decent wage and a secure home.
The Prime Minister and his party have taken a sledgehammer to those foundations on which a good life can be built. People can no longer be sure that by working hard they will get on, or that where they come from will not hold them back. The only certainty is that this Government will sit on their hands while working people graft and Ministers promise more of the same.
Last year, it was the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who led the second day of debate on the Queen’s Speech for the Government. This year, she was dancing away through her party’s conference with Nigel Farage—dancing the right away, we might say—but it is the current Home Secretary who is dancing to his tune. This week, she told us her answer to homelessness: “Take away their tents.” And her answer to crime? To waste police time arresting charity volunteers for giving the tents out. Then there is the Prime Minister, who is so weak that he does not dare put the proposals to us but does not dare to distance himself from them either. He chooses delay, while his Cabinet argues behind closed doors. We know who is leading this dance and who is following.
That is the story of this King’s Speech through and through: party before country. We needed a King’s Speech that would draw a line under 13 years of Tory decline, but instead we have a party so devoid of leadership that the only fight left in them is to fight among themselves. But while Cabinet Ministers argue over headlines, schools across our country are literally crumbling, with children cowering under steel props to stop the roof falling in. Is there any clearer example of a Government failing in their basic duties than the constant drip, drip of schools being added to the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete list? At the current rate, over 2 million children are at risk of regularly missing school by 2025. That is one in four of all children currently at primary and secondary school. A lost generation of children in England are facing a tidal wave of mental ill health, unable to get treatment through the NHS.
Yesterday, we waited for a plan for our children and young people that would see aspiration and ambition for everyone, a plan to prevent a child’s background from being a barrier to their getting on, a plan to deliver a broad, inclusive and innovative curriculum, a plan to get to grips with the epidemic of persistent absence and mend the broken relationship between schools, families and Government, and a plan to enable every child to achieve and thrive. Yet this sorry excuse for a Government offer no plan for crumbling buildings, no plan to broaden the narrow, outdated curriculum, no plan for the children missing from classrooms since the pandemic, and no plan for the future.

Munira Wilson: One of the things that we did not hear about from the Education Secretary is the attainment gap between the wealthiest pupils and the most disadvantaged, which is growing, as evidenced by the Education Policy Institute and many other experts. We have seen that small-group and one-to-one tutoring can be a really effective intervention for disadvantaged children,  yet the national tutoring programme is not due to continue beyond this year. Will the right hon. Lady join me in calling on the Education Secretary to extend the national tutoring programme and fully fund it so that schools can help the most disadvantaged pupils?

Angela Rayner: I will do better than that: I call on the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister to call a general election and let Labour take over. We will make sure that every child in this country has an opportunity. All too often, the prospects of children in Britain are limited by the circumstances of their birth, not opened up by their opportunities in life. Led by our formidable shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), Labour has a serious plan to boost child development and young people’s school outcomes, as well as to expand training routes so that more people than ever are on pathways with good prospects by 2035.
This starts at school. I do not think the Secretary of State understands that. I remember all too well feeling hungry all day at school and being unable to focus. I am proud to say that Labour will introduce breakfast clubs in every primary school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South announced, Labour will be on the side of children and families. We will boost standards across schools by reinstating the requirement for qualified teacher status, ensuring that teaching is a respected and valued profession. We will reset relationships with families, schools, teachers and school staff. And Labour will end the tax breaks for private schools to fund that investment in excellent state education for everyone.
The fact is that young people are caught in a vicious Tory doom loop, denied the opportunities their parents had, left behind by their Government from school to employment, and unable to rely on the security of a decent home and a secure job.
What the Tory party has successfully built is a boulevard of broken dreams. The Conservatives have broken their promises to renters, to leaseholders, to house builders, and to all those who dream of owning their own home. Like a bad Santa at Christmas, they are doling out broken promises in every direction. There is a broken promise to renters, with the ban on no-fault evictions kicked into the long grass in an indefinite delay and with the Government blaming a court system that they themselves have broken, appeasing the vested interests on their own Benches rather than doing the right thing for the country. There is a broken promise to leaseholders —not the integrated package of recommendations for enfranchisement, commonhold and right to manage proposed by the Law Commission, but more cherry-picking and space-saving from the Secretary of State. There is a broken promise to house builders: the Government said that they would bring back amended proposals to reform nutrient neutrality rules after their flawed first attempt was rightly rejected by those in the other place, including many Conservative Lords. We stood, and we stand, ready to agree on reform to build the homes that we need while protecting the rivers from pollution, but yesterday we heard not a word. The Government were never serious; they were just playing political games.
And what about first-time buyers? There are no targets, no ideas and no ambition. The Government were too weak to take on the blockers in their own party and deliver the change that our country needs. The dream of a safe, secure and affordable home is moving ever further out of reach. Instead of homes, all that the Government have built is a house of cards. That is the difference between us. We have a recovery plan for secure homes: a plan to build 1.5 million homes across the country, with a reformed planning regime that will unlock our potential. This is no time to wait. Let us get Britain building again with a generation of new towns, unlocking growth across Britain with the biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation. The Government cannot fix homelessness without increasing the supply of housing, and they cannot boost real growth unless workers have the homes they need. We will not duck the difficult issues as the Tories have. We would abolish no-fault evictions and fix the broken leasehold system once and for all. Labour is the only party that is serious about boosting the supply of new homes to buy or to rent and unlocking the dream of a safe, secure and affordable home for all.

Flick Drummond: The Labour party talks about 1.5 million new houses; we talk about 300,000 new houses over the next five years. Can you tell me exactly what the difference is?

Angela Rayner: I think the hon. Lady needs to ask herself whether her Government have ever delivered on any of their housing targets. They have not done so. They can pick a number out of the sky, but they have not delivered on it. They have not taken on the blockers in their own party, which is why we are in this decline and do not have the houses that we want in our country. But Labour will deliver those houses, will take on the blockers, and will make sure that people do have a home for life.
I had a sense of déjà vu when I listened to yesterday’s speech, because some of it sounded rather familiar. Let us take the pledge to
“increase housing supply and home ownership by reforming the planning system”.
That was not said yesterday; it was said back in 2014, nearly a decade ago—and home ownership rates are lower now than they were when the Tories came to power. Or let us take this line, from 2013:
“My ministers will continue to prioritise measures that reduce the deficit—ensuring interest rates are kept low for homeowners and businesses.”
Well, that went well! Since the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget, when they crashed the economy, interest rates have gone through the roof, and mortgage holders have been £580 a month worse off in the last year alone. Or let us take this one:
“My Government will help more people…enhancing the rights of those who rent.”
That was back in 2021, and almost identical words have featured in every single Gracious Speech in the current Parliament. However, the pledge was first made in April 2019, by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). It is now five sessions, four and a half years and four Tory Prime Ministers later. They do not really like anything involving high speed, do they? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for  Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), will at least be able to say later whether he will commit to scrapping section 21 by next April, five years after they pledged to do so. If they do not have support from their own Benches, I can offer ours, and if they do not achieve that in their last King’s speech, we will do it in our first.
This Government have failed young people not only from school to housing, but into employment too. Yesterday’s announcements were utterly out of touch when it came to the basic foundation of decent work. Time and again—in fact, 20 times—Ministers promised an employment Bill that would not only protect workers but strengthen our broken labour market, boosting productivity, retention and growth. They promised that enhanced rights and protections were just around the corner, but they never came. The promise to introduce a single enforcement body, a measure that is backed by businesses and workers alike? Gone. The promise to make it easier for fathers to take paternity leave? Disappeared. The promise to end the cruel practice of fire and rehire? Up in smoke. Instead, the Government have done nothing but fail workers, the public and businesses by doubling down on their failed approach to Britain’s broken labour market. leading to the worst strikes in decades.
Now the Government are getting their excuses in early for Christmas, offering another sticking plaster to distract from the Conservatives’ track record of failure. We all want minimum standards of service and staffing, but it is Tory Ministers who are constantly failing to provide them. I know: I am an Avanti West Coast user. Only Labour can offer the change that Britain needs, with industrial relations fit for a modern economy where issues can be resolved before they escalate. We will bring in a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and Government, which will mean that issues are resolved before the need for strikes. We will learn from other high-growth economies that benefit from more co-operation and less disruption by updating trade union legislation so that it is fit for a modern economy.
Labour’s new deal is our plan to make work pay and help working people to thrive, tackling insecure work and ensuring good jobs and higher living standards in every part of the country. The next Labour Government will present an employment rights Bill to Parliament within 100 days of taking office. We will offer a new deal for working people, with zero-hours contracts banned; fire and rehire gone; basic rights from day one; and a genuine minimum wage taking into account the real cost of living that every adult will benefit from. We will go further and faster in closing the gender pay gap, making work more family-friendly and tackling sexual harassment.
Our plans will benefit not just working people but be good for businesses and the economy. They will help to keep more people in work, improve productivity and put more money in working people’s pockets to spend—the absolute route to real growth. That will also benefit businesses by ending the race to the bottom by ensuring that good employers are not undercut by those who use exploitative employment practices. By levelling up workers’ rights, Labour will be starting a race to the top, with a future of work that provides opportunity, affords dignity and fuels growth in every part of the country—  [Interruption.] The public know you laugh at them, they see it all the time. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think Government Front Benchers need to listen. It would be good for them to understand what it is like for working people in this country after they crashed the economy, sent inflation sky high and put record numbers of tax burdens on working people. I really do think they need to listen.
The British people deserve a Government who match their aspirations; a country where families have more money in their pockets, decent pay and good jobs; a country where their children have the opportunity they deserve to thrive, where young people are not held back by their background; and a Britain where no one is written off and no one is left behind. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State chunters. Call a general election and let’s test.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. While I have hon. Members’ attention, I give a little reminder of the importance of addressing Members not directly—the word “you” means me—but through the Chair. I also give a little reminder of my advice on time limits.

Wendy Morton: I thank His Majesty King Charles III for delivering the Gracious Speech yesterday, as others across the House have done.
I make my contribution as the Member of Parliament for Aldridge-Brownhills, a patchwork of communities, each with its own identity and a uniqueness to be recognised and celebrated, echoing the industrial spirit of our past while looking to the challenges and opportunities of the future. It is this theme of opportunity that I want to focus on, starting with houses and homes.
It is well known in this place and beyond that, together with the Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, I am a passionate advocate of a brownfield-first approach to developing new homes. In doing so, we can be that truly regeneration generation, building new homes and protecting our precious green belt and green spaces, for which I will keep advocating. I welcome measures in the King’s Speech to regenerate our town centres. By regenerating, reusing and recycling existing brownfield town centres and empty high street properties, we can adopt a circular-economy approach to housing. It can be a win-win.
Good regeneration is also helpful—in fact, vital—in protecting our green belts, which are critical to preventing urban sprawl. That is why they were created back in 1935, and they must continue to be protected to prevent areas such as those I represent from becoming subsumed into the suburbs of a greater Birmingham. Yes, I would have liked more mention of planning in the King’s Speech, building on the previous Session’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It is about time we stopped using the green belt as a scapegoat for our country’s housing shortage.
Housing and homes are about not just building new homes but making the most of what we have and developing a mix of housing. That brings me back to my point on regeneration, but it also brings me on to another housing matter, which I am pleased to see come  forward at last. That is leasehold reform. I must declare an interest as a leaseholder, as I am sure many other Members are, but I raise it because, far from its being an issue that affects only our cities, leasehold affects constituencies across the country, including my own. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities estimates that there are around 4.98 million leasehold homes in England. That is a lot of homes.
It has become apparent in recent years—and in my inbox—that a raft of problems can affect leaseholders. [Interruption.] I see the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), nodding in agreement. Examples include extortionate service charges and the complexity of extending lease agreements and marriage values. That causes stress and uncertainty for leaseholders and barriers for buyers, and it is time we sorted it out. A report from the Law Commission has been sitting in DLUHC for some time, so I gently say to the Minister, “Can you get a move on with this, please, in the remaining time in this Parliament?”
A lack of transport can be a barrier to opportunity. Access to a good local train station will be transformative for communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. Stations can help to reconnect small communities, regenerate local economies and improve access to opportunity—to jobs, homes and education. There are currently only eight places with a population of 30,000 or more without an operational railway station situated within 5 km. Aldridge is one of them. I urge the Government to push ahead with the next stage of this important project and to work with me and Mayor Andy Street to deliver a train station in Aldridge as part of Network North. We are making progress, so let us continue to do that. My constituents deserve to share the benefits of greater connectivity.
Transport, housing, a safe community—all that matters, but so do skills to take advantage of job opportunities. I welcome the Government’s determination to strengthen education for the long term, and invest in skills and education both for the future and for today. Right now, the UK has 1.1 million job vacancies, yet there are still people seeking work. We have to ask why. It could be partially explained by the misfortune of having a deficit of highly skilled people to take those jobs. The skills shortage is set to cost our country £120 billion by 2030 due to a shortfall of 2.5 million highly skilled workers. That should not be the case. The UK is a renowned global leader in academic excellence in education, so why are we suffering from a shortage of highly skilled workers when we should be a high-skill, high-wage economy?
Maybe we are not investing enough in the right skills in the right areas. There is a mismatch between skills and industry that we need to address urgently. I know, from speaking to local businesses in my constituency, that there are vacancies for technicians, mechanics and toolmakers. Across the Black Country and the broader west midlands, manufacturing jobs are available, but there is a deficit of skilled people to take up those positions.
I am pleased to hear that the Government are focusing on that and in particular on apprenticeships and technical qualifications to ensure, most importantly, that our young people have choices and that they understand  what those choices are. I am very fortunate to have in my constituency a company called In-Comm, which is one of the UK’s leading training providers, delivering engineering skills, apprenticeships, training and upskilling. The Minister with responsibility for apprentices is on the Government Front Bench. Maybe he would like to come along and visit, and see the amazing work that it does with businesses and young people.
I turn to the topic of safer communities, which was also a theme and focus in the King’s Speech. Safer communities are stronger communities and crime, sadly, is a scourge on our society. In recent years it has become all too prevalent in too many of our communities. Office for National Statistics data shows that in 2022-23 across the west midlands we recorded the highest rate of offences across England and Wales, with 178 knife crimes per 100,000 of population. That equates to a staggering average of 5,197 knife crime offences per year. But those are not just numbers, are they? Behind every number is a story—a family, a loved one, friends, colleagues, a community.
In my constituency, James Brindley fell victim to an unprovoked fatal stabbing in 2017 as he walked home from a night out. The James Brindley Foundation has a campaign to bring about positive social change and reduce youth violence. We urgently need the legislation now to deliver the promised ban on machetes and zombie-style knives, and for the police to have the powers to seize and destroy any weapon they find. That is something that I have campaigned for. Our local newspaper, the Express & Star, is also actively campaigning on that. Good work is going on locally, and it is connected to breaking down barriers to opportunity, but we need legislation now. I hope that measures will be included in the criminal justice Bill. Perhaps someone on the Government Front Bench will be able to confirm whether that is the case.
Local policing also matters when it comes to opportunity. [Interruption.] I am keeping an eye on the clock, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will get my skates on. I just want to touch on policing, bobbies and buildings, which are at the heart of our communities. We need safer communities to remove barriers to opportunity. That is why I am disappointed that our police and crime commissioner is pushing ahead with sweeping cuts to 30 police stations across the west midlands, including in Aldridge. That is a reckless choice from someone who is saving Quinton while sacrificing Aldridge. [Interruption.] I can hear people chattering, and I have said that I will bring my speech to a conclusion.
We need long-term decisions for the future, not short change for the short term. I urge Ministers to work with me and Andy Street, who knows the west midlands better than anybody when it comes to breaking down barriers of opportunity. I will continue to press the Government to do more for my constituents and to continue delivering opportunities for the people, businesses and organisations I represent.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I stress how important it is that we think of others when we make our speeches; otherwise I will have to put on a time limit. Obviously, I will not do so for the SNP spokesperson, but I am sure he will also be considerate of others.

Pete Wishart: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real pleasure to open for the Scottish National party on the day after the day before. I think of this as a constitutional Boxing day, when we assess the quality of the turkey, see how the hangover is getting on and make sure that the odd crown or tiara has not been left behind and that everyone got home with the right ermine robe.
That brings me to the first barrier. Do we have to do this so ostentatiously? Our constituents are suffering probably their worst cost of living crisis. Some of those emeralds and rubies that were described by the BBC yesterday probably cost as much as a local authority budget.
I know it is likely that the tribunes of the people will be presenting the next King’s speech and, keeping with their political pallor, maybe it will have a bit more measure and be a bit more in keeping with what this country deserves, particularly as it is going through a tough time. I already have constituents getting in touch with me who are quite upset about the sheer ostentatiousness of what we observed. [Interruption.] I will get to the substance.
This was a King’s Speech designed to revive the Government’s catastrophic fortunes—they have been 20 percentage points or more behind in the opinion polls for about two years. This was an opportunity to reacquaint themselves with the British public’s affections. How did they get on? The sad news for Conservative Members is that the answer is: not particularly well. I doubt they want to see this morning’s headlines, which say that it was a dud, a dead duck, a missed chance, a failed opportunity—and that is only the Tory press. There were some real crackers, including “The Kingzzz Speech”. One newspaper said that Colin Firth’s one was better. I particularly liked the description “insipid” that featured in The National—probably the finest publication in the UK—because it was mine.
This King’s Speech had to work for the Government, as they are looking for something to get them out to the stump to “stand up and fight”, as the Leader of the House said. They wanted red meat, but this King’s Speech was like last week’s boeuf bourguignon. It was not a fillet steak so much as offal, both literally and figuratively.
They were looking for populist measures to get them out there, and what did they get? A smoking ban. This is the biggest congregation of right-wing Tories we will ever see assembled on these Benches, and I hardly thought they would be standard bearers for progressive liberalism. Even the Liberal Democrats have not proposed a smoking ban. I support it, and I think it is great, but imagine a lily-livered liberal like me supporting a Tory measure. I do not know whether that is good news or bad news for them, but it is certainly not the red meat they wanted.
There are so many contradictory and confusing things in the King’s Speech. The Government have styled themselves as the friend of the motorist—the scourge of 20 mph neighbourhoods—who will get rid of clean-air zones so that people have to breathe exhaust fumes for the next few years. But what have they gone and done? They have only gone and planned to legislate for self-driving cars. So much for being on the motorist’s side. There will not be any motorists any more. That is one measure  that particularly intrigued me. I suppose they could be the scourge of 20 mph neighbourhoods with an algorithm—that’s the modern Tories for you.
This was a last-gasp King’s Speech. It was a bit like that 14-year-old looking for a pack of cigarettes in some future corner shop. This King’s Speech confirms almost everything we know about this Conservative Government. It is a legislative programme from a “can’t be bothered” Government with nothing more to say, who are just waiting to be put out of their misery.
The theme of today’s debate is “Breaking down barriers to opportunity.” The opportunity that the whole country wants is the opportunity to kick the chaotic Tories out of power, and the barrier to that is their refusal to give us a general election so that we could achieve that objective.
Another opportunity that Scottish National party Members are looking for is the opportunity to get my nation away from this place. This King’s Speech was delivered by a Government we did not vote for, and who are doing things that we do not approve of and that we do not want. Would it not be better if my nation were governed by the people who live and work in Scotland?
Just by saying that, even I might be labelled an “extremist”. There was lots of talk about the red meat that was supposed to be included in all of this—all this stuff about turfing homeless people out of their shelters on the streets of the UK—but another thing the Government were considering was extending the definition of an “extremist” to cover people who sought to undermine the integrity of the UK. That is my political mission. My job here is to ensure that the UK is undermined and that my nation becomes free and independent. I do not know whether the Government are now thinking about extending the definition of “extremist” to cover half the people in Scotland who currently support Scottish independence—I am looking forward to seeing them try to bring that one in.
Of course, very few Bills in this King’s Speech apply directly to Scotland, which was not even mentioned in the King’s Speech. I have been listening to the pain of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who notes that it contains no mention of Wales either. Apparently, we are told in some of the documents that 20 of these Bills somehow apply to Scotland, but they barely touch the sides of the Scottish experience and the conditions that my constituents are living in just now. We are looking for practical measures that deal with the reality of the situation for our constituents, such as proposals to deal with the cost of living crisis and to help people through this winter and with their energy bills, which will remain sky high. Nothing in the King’s Speech does that.
The Scottish Government, my colleagues in Edinburgh, are having to pick that up, with the transformative Scottish child payment. The one thing we have in our gift that we can deliver to the Scottish people is freezing council tax, and that is exactly what we are doing. Where we are in charge and have the responsibility, we will make that difference to the living standards of people in our nation—something this Government are not prepared to do and I am proud that our Government are doing it.
I am setting out the opportunities that we will give to bring dignity back and to tackle the real issues that are being experienced. It seems as though the Department  for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department for Education are leading this debate, but nothing in this King’s Speech deals with either of those areas. Thank goodness that is the case in education; I say that after listening to that drivel from the Secretary of State, with the Government’s ideological venture in education. It has absolutely nothing to do with Scottish education and so we can get on with making sure that we deliver for our children.
While the Tories are fascinated with taking on poor degrees and university courses, we are making sure that young people in Scotland get the destinations they deserve. We have seen fantastic figures, with 95.7% of 2022 school leavers in Scotland having now secured that positive destination; they have gone into work, training or further education. The national 5 pass rate is up from 78.2% in 2019 to 81.6% in 2022, which was our best exam year ever. Higher exam pass rates increased from 71.7% in 2007 to 80.3% in 2022. Thank goodness we do not have the Tories involved in any of our devolved services, because if they were, we would end up being subject to that drivel we have heard. Of course, we also have no tuition fees in Scotland, which means that students from Scotland do not have the crippling, sky-high debt that these Tories seek to burden our young people with at the beginning of their lives—thank goodness for that.
Of course, there is one Bill that totally applies to Scotland: the Bill that seeks to have an annual licensing round for North sea exploration. It perplexes me, along with many people in Scotland, because I remember—you were here too, Madam Deputy Speaker, so you will remember—that during the debate about Scottish independence the Government and the “Better Together” side told us that Scotland’s oil and gas was just about to run out. We were told that we were cursed with this stuff and that even having it would impoverish us, but now we find out that North sea oil and gas will liberate us from foreign reserves, reduce bills and give the nation the energy security it needs. What a remarkable resource we have in the North sea: it can simultaneously be running out and a curse, while rescuing the UK from its current conditions when it comes to oil and gas. That, of course, is all absolute bunkum.
Apparently, we will get to net zero more efficiently by taking more carbon out of the ground, burning it and then releasing it into the atmosphere. No one believes that sort of bunkum science other than the Tories. This Government have already watered down the climate targets, pushing back the deadline for selling new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers. By far the best way to improve energy security, cut bills and support workers is through investing in more renewables.
Extracting more oil from the North sea will not help energy security in Britain or reduce bills. Our oil is owned by the big companies, such as Shell and BP, which extract it and sell it into the international markets. We then buy it back at market rates. The new licences will make no difference. The way to reduce dependence on foreign oil is to reduce dependence on oil—it is as simple as that.
After 14 years, is this really the best the Tories can do? They are now at the stage where they are wanting change—change from themselves. Yes, we all want change,  but the change that we all require and need is to get rid of the Conservatives. At some point in the course of the next year, they will meet their destiny with the British people, which I suppose and suggest will not be good for them. The King’s Speech has not worked for them. They probably have one last chance and effort when it comes to the autumn statement, but I do not think anybody is expecting them to get out that way.
I do not just want rid of this Conservative Government; I do not want the Westminster Government impacting and affecting decisions made in this country. We will get there, Madam Deputy Speaker, first by making sure that they are replaced and then making sure that Scotland has the opportunity to decide its own future. Believe me, when that opportunity comes, Scotland will make its position dead clear and we will be leaving this place for good.

Richard Drax: Pageantry is one of our country’s greatest strengths, with yesterday’s state opening of Parliament reaffirming our standards and values to the world. I am proud of our royal family, our country and our democracy. It saddens and concerns me that a significant minority do not share my views. Some of them plan to march in London during this Remembrance weekend, which is a time reserved for quiet reflection about those who have died serving in our name. They gave the ultimate sacrifice.
The right to protest peacefully in this country is long held, and rightly so. However, Saturday’s march must be banned. Not only is it disrespectful, but there is a genuine risk of disorder, potentially on a large scale. I urge those who are genuinely concerned about the war in Gaza to stay at home on this special weekend of Remembrance. To those who do attend, I say there can be no other reason other than to cause trouble.
As for the King’s Speech, I have mixed feelings. With a year to go before an election, I am always looking for red meat—certainly for a far stronger narrative. To be fair, no Bill alone can tackle the huge challenges the country faces, such as our debt, foreign wars and the consequences of the pandemic. What the nation is looking for is a healthy dose of common sense, a re-emergence of British values and an end to all this wokey, politically correct nonsense that is corrupting all that we hold dear.
A ban on smoking and the Orwellian driverless car are not top priorities either. The British people are crying out for a clear choice. For too long, with our high taxes and bloated state, we have aped those on the Opposition Benches, spending money that we simply do not have. Courage and conviction are needed now, and we did see hints of that in the King’s Speech. Tougher sentencing, more money for our armed forces, and more doctors, nurses and dentists, to name but three, are all positive and are to be welcomed.
However, words are easy; it is backing them up coherently that counts. For example, a new ambition to raise defence spending from 2% to 2.5% is good news, but arbitrary targets are meaningless. Would it not be more sensible to calculate what we need to defend our island and fulfil our NATO obligations before we even think of setting targets? Our armed forces are under-resourced—and this when the world order is under threat.
Another ambiguity is the new licensing regime to extract oil and gas from the North sea. While totally sensible, punitive taxes are hardly going to encourage companies to take such a risk. To secure investment, countless jobs and our energy security, the industry urgently needs low taxes. Oil and gas will continue to play a role in our economy for many years to come. To deny that will condemn the country to abject misery. Why was there not a Bill to redraft the Climate Change Act 2008, which will simply impoverish us, and scrap all the green taxes? I am all for reducing carbon emissions, but not until the renewables are reliable and affordable. And let us not forget nuclear, which will be a crucial part of the mix.
Welcome, too, is the reform of tougher sentencing for serious offenders. But, while those offenders will spend more time in jail, those committing less serious crimes will evade it because we have reached full capacity. New prisons are being built, but not fast enough.
One Bill that I would like to have seen in the King’s Speech is one reintroducing national service for those who need a hand up, and that number is sadly growing. We already spend billions of pounds on encouraging reliance on the state. Let us spend that instead on instilling in people that life is about contributing, about service, and about taking responsibility for one’s self.
I hope most sincerely that the much-awaited autumn statement will go some way to answering some of my concerns. What we need right now is a clear vision based on sound Conservative values. We are Conservatives, so let us start acting like them before it is too late.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. The Secretary of State’s attack on Sure Start, which was dismantled by the Conservatives, was completely ill-conceived. The one area where I thought she did have a point was in her attack on the state of secondary education when she was a pupil and the Thatcher Government were in charge. Thankfully, the Labour Governments that followed have addressed those very serious problems that she suffered from when she was at school.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) was absolutely right to take the Home Secretary to task for her attack on people forced to sleep on the pavements in tents, and for her description of them having made a “lifestyle choice” to do so. It is hard to understand how somebody holding such a crucial role in the government of this country can have no grasp of the harsh realities facing far too many people during the current crisis.
In opening the debate on the King’s Speech yesterday, the Prime Minister spent some time, quite rightly, talking about the situation in the middle east. I want to take the Home Secretary to task again for her description of those taking part in the recent Palestine marches as having taken part in a “hate march”. She owes those marchers an apology. No doubt she has not spoken to any of them, but the constituents whom I have spoken to who have been taking part in those marches have no truck at all with the appalling massacre and hostage-taking by Hamas. They are definitely not motivated by hate; they are motivated by distress and compassion. They see appalling images, refreshed on their screens hourly,  of children being killed and maimed. Some have told me they cannot sleep at the moment because of their distress at what is happening. They want it to stop. Surely we all want it to stop. The Home Secretary may reach a different conclusion from those who have been on the marches, but she is absolutely wrong to impugn their motives so unfairly. Unlike the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), I think that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is absolutely right in his decision about the march this weekend; there is no lawful basis for a ban.
I am glad that the Prime Minister has made a renewed commitment to deliver a two-state solution—two secure states alongside each other in peace—but we have all been saying that for so long and nobody has done anything to make it happen. The Government of Israel have for years been undermining that prospect. One of the criticisms they will have to answer when the fighting stops is why their soldiers were off protecting people living in the still-expanding illegal settlements in the west bank when they should have been protecting Israeli citizens in their own country, who were left undefended in the Hamas attack. The renewed commitment to a two-state solution from the Prime Minister, which I welcome, must be delivered once the fighting stops.
Like others, I was struck by omissions from the King’s Speech. It refers to proposals being published to reform welfare and support more people into work, but there is no sign of any Bill. The Government have been undertaking a rushed consultation lasting only eight weeks over major proposals to change the descriptors for the work capability assessment. On the Work and Pensions Committee, we have heard from organisations such as Citizens Advice about the deeply unsatisfactory nature of that rushed exercise, and the consequences for people who are out of work on health grounds. The Government’s own Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that
“the consultation period is insufficient to enable disabled people and their representative organisations to respond meaningfully.”
The Select Committee asked on a unanimous cross-party basis that the consultation be extended so that it can be done properly. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State rejected our request.
There will have to be legislation to make whatever changes are decided on, but there is no mention at all in the King’s Speech of a Bill to do it. There is a puzzle here, because the Government have announced that they plan to abolish the work capability assessment in a couple of years anyway. That will require legislation, but there is no Bill to do any of those things in the King’s Speech. There are press reports that the Government intend to inspect benefits claimants’ bank accounts regularly. That will also require powers, but there is nothing in the King’s Speech that would have that effect either.
There is no pensions Bill. The Government consulted on proposals for the consolidation of defined-benefit pension schemes in 2018. Finally, after five years, the Government responded to that consultation in July this year. Consolidation is important for the ambition to secure more pension scheme investment into the UK economy, as set out by the Chancellor in his Mansion House speech. In that speech, he spoke of
“introducing a permanent superfund regulatory regime”.
The commitment of the Minister for Pensions to having a permanent regulated regime for superfunds as soon as parliamentary time allows was very welcome, but there is not a Bill. The aspiration that the Chancellor set out not very long ago will not be fulfilled by this King’s Speech.
In evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, the chief executive of Clara-Pensions said that in an “ideal world” legislation for superfunds “would be enacted today.” Luke Webster of The Pension SuperFund said that the direction of travel set out in the Department’s response was
“very helpful and having that properly defined in regulation would give a lot more confidence to investors and those involved in delivering these proposals.”
But there is no Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne pointed out in her opening speech, there is no employment Bill either. Ever since the Taylor review six years ago, Ministers have promised a Bill to regularise the status of people working in the gig economy, ensuring access to a pension scheme and other rights that Parliament has determined they should have. It was in the Queen’s Speech in 2019, but yesterday it was missing once again.
Today the Trussell Trust announced the highest ever level of food bank demand. In the six months to September, more than 1.5 million emergency food parcels were given out—16% more than in the same period last year. Nothing in the King’s Speech addressed that disgrace.

Jim Shannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Stephen Timms: I think I had better wind up, considering the advice you have given us, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor must at least uprate working-age benefits in line with September’s inflation to avoid making matters even worse.

Rob Butler: It is a pleasure to speak in this historic debate following the first King’s Speech in more than 70 years.
Opportunity manifests in many ways, but one thing is clear: it is the Conservatives who are the party of opportunity. As a comprehensive school student during the Thatcher years, I was inspired to look for opportunities and seize them—not to expect to be given a handout, but to work hard as a way to achieve my ambitions. I recognise that I have been very lucky. I have had many opportunities and some successes along the way, and one reason I sought election to this place was to help to give other people better opportunities, whatever their background or whatever may befall them.
Key to opportunity is the economy. That is the case for everyone, whatever walk of life they are in. Too many people sneer at the private sector and criticise the profit motive, but it is entrepreneurs who take the risks and make the investments, and businesses that create the jobs and generate the wealth. Without them, there would be no money to pay tax and therefore no money to deliver the excellent public services we all deserve  and want.
I was delighted that His Majesty began his Gracious Speech by stating that his Ministers’ focus was on increasing economic growth. We need to remove the barriers to growth if we are to remove the barriers to opportunity. That means reducing regulation, incentivising investment and lowering taxes, all in a fiscally responsible way. I am particularly pleased that the Government have committed to addressing the drivers of low growth over increasing the national debt. That is in marked contrast to the Opposition’s solution of more tax, more borrowing and more debt, but we should not be surprised; after all, that has always been Labour’s way, and we know the shadow Chancellor is a fan of “cut and paste”.
I share the Government’s firm belief in the ability of education to break down barriers to opportunity and improve life chances. We are doing that in Aylesbury, where our excellent schools strive to give every child a brilliant start in life. Buckinghamshire is renowned for its grammar schools, and deservedly so, if my recent visit to Aylesbury High School is anything to go by. The spirited questions from its sixth formers reminded me somewhat of this place. However, it is not just academic education flourishing in Aylesbury. Since my election I have been a strong supporter of Aylesbury University Technical College, and I am extremely pleased to have been able to help to secure its long-term future. I am also pleased to see the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—who I know is an equally ardent supporter of UTCs—on the Front Bench.
I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to high-quality technical education, affirmed in the King’s Speech, and the parity of esteem that will be achieved with the introduction of the advanced British standard. That is how we open up more opportunities for young people, by providing options and educational choice—quite the contrast, once again, with those on the Opposition Benches, from whom all we have heard is the politics of envy in the form of taxing independent school fees. That is red meat for the militant left, but not a feasible plan for the Government. What better illustration could we have of the fact that on the Conservative Benches we believe in opportunity for all, whereas the Labour party believes in division?
Moreover, where better to illustrate the Conservative commitment to opportunity than my own county, where Buckinghamshire’s Conservative council runs the Opportunity Bucks programme to address education, health and income inequalities? While Buckinghamshire as a whole may be a wealthy county, parts of Aylesbury struggle with considerable deprivation. To tackle that, ambitious plans are in place for the redevelopment of our town centre. I look forward to working with the local business community, local councillors and the Levelling Up Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who is on the Front Bench, to ensure that the right long-term decisions are made for Aylesbury to remain a great place to live, work, visit and invest.
Unfortunately, these days it can be something of a challenge to get to Aylesbury and experience all that it has to offer, as a result of appalling traffic congestion. Much of that could be overcome by the rapid construction of the link roads that have been planned to circle the town, so the formal announcement in the King’s Speech  of Network North is a welcome way to speed up the approval of funding for the south-east Aylesbury link road and the eastern link road project.
That would go some small way to begin compensating for the huge disruption and devastation that has been caused in my constituency by the construction of phase 1 of High Speed 2. It is a blight we see every day with woodlands being felled; it is a blight we feel every day sitting in yet more traffic as HS2’s heavy goods vehicles ruin our roads. Funding that comes from the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2 would be an important contribution to greater connectivity for individuals and firms alike. As the Federation of Small Businesses told me recently, connectivity is absolutely key to the success of companies across the country.
I will briefly address another barrier to opportunity: involvement in the criminal justice system. As the House knows, prior to my election, I served as a magistrate and was a member of the Sentencing Council and a non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. My determination, and even passion, to improve the criminal justice system is one of the principal drivers of my work in this place. Over the past few years, we have seen a welcome increase in the emphasis on getting former prisoners into jobs, because we know that paid work can dramatically reduce the risk of reoffending. A job provides not only an honest wage but a sense of worth. Sadly, however, too many ex-offenders do not yet have that opportunity. That is partly because short prison sentences do relatively little to reduce reoffending, so I am pleased that the Government are embarking on radical sentencing reforms, especially by increasing the focus on robust community orders.
The concept of a virtual prison is one that we should also explore—to seize the opportunities afforded by digital innovation to create opportunities for personal change, growth and success. It is also right that for the worst offenders, the entire prison sentence will be spent behind bars, and that, for the most appalling crimes, life will mean life. That, too, represents opportunity: the opportunity for victims of crime to know that justice has been done; and the opportunity for the public to be safe, secure and protected from harm—the Government carrying out their first and prime duty to their citizens.
Whether in justice, in education or in the economy, the King’s Speech sets out Bills for the months ahead that show a brighter future for our country—a brighter future that can come only from this Conservative Government.

Rosie Winterton: We have speeded up a bit. My guidance still stands, but it is now for speeches of eight or nine minutes.

Angela Eagle: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) in this King’s Speech debate.
After 13 years of Tory Government, and three Prime Ministers in the last year and a half, this King’s Speech offered us pretty thin gruel. There was no real vision for the future, there was nothing like a plan to get there, and it was nowhere near adequate to meet the challenges this country is facing. The Speech contained just 21 Bills, six of which have been carried over from last year’s  parliamentary Session. Many of those included, such as on leasehold reform, turn out on closer inspection to be pale shadows of what was promised by the Government. There are Bills that nod towards the need for reform but do not actually deliver meaningful change, or delay it so long as to be meaningless. They sit alongside such towering legislative ambitions as a Bill to license pedicabs in London.
That legislative programme leaves the challenges that my Wallasey constituents are facing virtually unaddressed: taxes are the highest they have been for 70 years, mortgages are up, rents have skyrocketed, the cost of living squeeze goes on, inflation remains the highest in the G7, and food inflation is higher still. Growth is projected to be zero next year, and the Bank of England has put the chance of a recession at 50:50. After 13 years of this Government, our rivers and seas are filled with sewage, our schools are crumbling, 94% of crimes go unsolved, our transport system is in chaos, and over 7.5 million people are on an NHS waiting list. Where in this King’s Speech were those things addressed?
Food insecurity was once rare; now, in the past year in a rich G7 country, over 11 million of our fellow citizens have experienced it. In my constituency of Wallasey, the number of emergency food bank parcels provided by the Trussell Trust has increased by 57% since the last general election. On the Wirral as a whole, over 16,000 people received emergency food parcels last year, a third of whom were children, and in the country as a whole, nine children out of 30 in a class are growing up in poverty. This legislative plan does not even mention, let alone begin to address, the daily struggles and hardship that millions of people in this country are now facing.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) mentioned, there were some notable omissions from the speech, including a promised reform of the Mental Health Act 1983; an employment Bill to give workers a fairer deal; and the Tory manifesto promise to ban conversion therapy for LGBT+ people. There was no sign of the promised reform of audit rules—boring to some, but quite important to the good working of our economy—and as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the promised reform of pensions was also absent. Despite the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted summit, there was no regulation of artificial intelligence anywhere to be seen, either.
We have a Government who have long since ceased to govern, who seem uninterested in tackling the serious issues our country faces and who seek division, rather than solution. We have a programme for the final year of this Parliament that was briefed out by senior Tories as being designed to set “traps” for Labour in the forthcoming general election campaign. The offshore petroleum licensing Bill is one such example: the industry says that the Bill will make no difference whatsoever, and the Secretary of State has been forced to admit that it will not lower energy costs for consumers. While rough sleeping is up 74% under the Tories, we have a Home Secretary who, instead of solving the problem of the housing shortage, wants to make it illegal to give tents to the homeless. She claims they are indulging in a “lifestyle choice” by having the temerity to sleep on our streets. We have five criminal justice Bills that toughen sentences for convicted criminals, but have nothing to say about the huge and growing backlogs of criminal cases   —some of which are taking two years even to get to court—or about the plummeting arrest and conviction rates for serious offences. They are tinkering, not dealing with the real issues.
Rather than do the day job, this tired and incompetent Government are grinding to a halt. They seem much more preoccupied with pursuing their own internal factional fights than addressing the growing needs of the country. Even now, it is possible to discern the looming battle to be the next Leader of the Opposition commencing between the current Home Secretary and the Trade Secretary. We can spot the dwindling band of Boris Johnson supporters publishing absurd, conspiracy-laden books such as “The Plot” to explain his defenestration, when the rest of us only need to follow the covid inquiry to appreciate what the real explanation is. As the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) tours the world proclaiming that despite her catastrophic 44-day tenure in office, she was in fact right all along, we can see that the Tory party can never be the change that this country is crying out for.
The change Britain needs is a mission-led Labour Government embarking on 10 years of national renewal—a Government who will secure the highest growth in the G7, make Britain a clean energy superpower, build an NHS fit for the future, make Britain’s streets safe, and break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage. It is long past time for this flailing, divisive Tory Government to recognise that the country needs real change, and to call a general election so that the country can have the new start it deserves—and sooner rather than later.

Rosie Winterton: I call Flick Drummond.

Flick Drummond: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for asking you to figure out the difference between those housing numbers earlier.
It is a total pleasure to speak in this debate on His Majesty’s Gracious Speech. As the Secretary of State stated, one of the best ways to break down barriers to opportunities is through education. Outside parenting, teachers and our schools are crucial to providing the life skills that ensure people from more disadvantaged backgrounds can break through any barriers. They enable them to do whatever they want to do with their lives. As the Sutton Trust has said:
“A young person’s future outcomes should not be determined by their background or economic circumstances.”
Boosting social mobility through education is the way we get talented young people to develop their ideas and improve the world for all of us.
Changing the education system to make sure it works for everyone is one of the reasons I got involved in politics. I wrote a report for the One Nation Conservatives over three years ago, and last year I was very pleased to see so many commissions coming to much the same conclusions. The Times education commission said that our curriculum is too narrow at the top and is not providing the skills that universities and businesses want.  I agree with that, and so do all the employers I speak to. That is why I am so pleased with the Prime Minister’s announcement about the advanced British standard, although I have made my views clear on the title. I do think we need to change it.
As I wrote in my report three years ago, I agree that putting vocational and academic subjects on a par with maths and English until 18 is an excellent idea. We are not talking about everyone doing maths A-level; we are talking about functional maths that might be related to a vocational subject or to life in general. One third of young people have to retake their maths and English GCSEs, over and over again in some circumstances. I have talked to young people about this, and I know it is very dispiriting and a blight on their education, so why are we still having these high-stakes exams at 16, when the key assessment point is in fact at 18? Very few other countries copy our approach. We should provide a system to assess at 18, get the curriculum right and remove the barriers of GCSEs. Most other countries start their technical education at age 13 or 14. I have always advocated a 13-to-18 curriculum, because not starting early will limit experience and exposure to many subjects, including technical education.
My final point is that I must regret the absence of a Bill to introduce a register of children not in school. The House will recall that I introduced such a Bill in the previous Session, after the measure was dropped from the Schools Bill. Before I introduced my Bill, I consulted teachers, educational think-tanks, children’s charities, teaching unions, the Children’s Commissioner and also Ministers. Parents have a right to home school children, and my Bill would have done nothing to prevent them from doing so. Its aim was to ensure that vulnerable children are identifiable and can be supported. There is a crisis in attendance post covid, and we have to tackle it before these children miss out.
My Bill fell at the end of the last Session, but I note that the Schools Minister has committed to introducing legislation at “a future suitable opportunity”. What more suitable opportunity could there be than the one we have now? I was deeply disappointed at the lack of such a Bill in the Gracious Speech. The wording of my Bill provided a ready-to-run solution, with support from across the House and across the education system. I urge Ministers to look at this again, and in the meantime I will continue to look at ways of getting this much-needed register in place.

Jeremy Corbyn: This debate is entitled “Breaking down barriers to opportunity”, and I look at the issues facing people in my community: poverty, low wages, the disgraceful two-child policy on benefits, systematic discrimination, inadequate housing, poor air quality and so on. They affect so many inner-city and other communities across this country, and I do not see any answers in the King’s Speech. On the environmental issues that the King managed to stumble across when telling us about the new policies, we are told that, somehow or other, new oil drilling and new fracking will improve the environment, make the world sustainable and put us in line with all the conventions that the Government have signed up to over the past few years. I just think that this debate is slightly surreal in its title, and in how the Government have addressed it.
I want to say a couple of things about education. In schools—certainly in England—there are deeply stressed teachers and deeply stressed students. We have a mental health crisis affecting all elements of staff within our schools and in particular young people. The mental health crisis goes right down into primary schools. At later stages, we have grotesquely indebted graduates and, in some cases, parents deeply in debt or having problems just trying to find childcare for their children to continue in work. It is not as if we are giving all our children a great start in life. The teaching unions’ strikes over the past year have been about wages, but they have also been about workload and the quality of education delivered in our schools. They have also demanded the full funding of the pay settlement that was agreed to ensure that school budgets were not slashed. The Government then did a volte-face on that. Having accepted that they would refund the schools to pay for the settlement, they have tried to get out of that. We need a catch-up process on our teachers’ salaries. Teachers have been so badly treated by this Government.
In an intervention on the Secretary of State—she kindly gave way—I raised the issue of falling school rolls. She answered that the Government are aware of and investigating the problem. In my constituency, along I suspect with those of many colleagues representing inner-urban areas, there is a problem of falling rolls. That is partly because of people moving out of urban areas, partly because of a lower birth rate and partly because of home schooling. There is a whole variety of issues, but the reality is that many schools have seriously falling rolls, and therefore are questioning their survival. Each school is asked to deal with the problem on its own, along with the local education authority where it is a maintained school. The teaching assistants go first, and the other support staff second. The teachers go third, and all along the line, the after-school activities and so on are all cut back and dealt with.
Successive Governments have understandably had to deal with this issue in rural areas, and they have come to a funding arrangement that has often protected rural schools, albeit with quite low numbers. I suggest the same principles should now be applied to inner-urban communities, too, because keeping a local primary school within walking distance for all children is important as part of the glue of the community, and I hope that issue can be addressed quickly. We do not have an integrated education system. We have far too much competition within the education community, and we have local authorities trying to juggle maintained schools, free schools and academies. They have great difficulty therefore in planning for future educational needs.
In the couple of minutes I have left, I will reflect on the statement earlier concerning the situation in Gaza and the demand for a ceasefire, which I strongly and fully support. All deaths are deplorable. Some 1,400 were killed in Israel, which is utterly deplorable, and a vile act was undertaken to kill those people. We now have more than 10,000 dead in Gaza, including 4,000 children who have been killed. The statement by Netanyahu of permanent occupation in Gaza suggests to me that they are trying to expel the entire population, and a new Gaza will therefore be created in the Sinai desert. That is the prospect we face. Somehow or other, our Government were incapable of voting at the UN even for the minimal request in the Brazilian-authored resolution of a  humanitarian pause at that time, and they still refuse to join the global call by a whole range of organisations for a ceasefire. That surely has to be the urgency of it.
This morning on BBC Radio 4, Mr Mustafa Barghouti, an independent member of the Palestinian Authority dedicated to non-violent resistance of the occupation, spoke at length and with great heartfelt feeling of the occupation over 70 years, the settlement policy in the west bank and the continuing and increasing settler aggression towards the Palestinian people. His voice should be listened to carefully. If there is to be a long-term settlement, it must be the end of the occupation, the end of the settlement policy and justice for those hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees living in camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the diaspora all around the world.
What is happening at the moment is ghastly beyond belief. We are watching in real time on television human life being destroyed with weapons, some of which have been in part supplied from this country. Cannot our Government just wake up to the simple humanitarian demand that millions of people in this country are making, and will be making in a peaceful march on Saturday, not in competition with the Remembrance weekend but part and parcel of it?
We are remembering the horror of all those who lost their lives in two world wars and many other wars, and trying to bring an end to this ghastly conflict to save lives from being destroyed in Gaza and anywhere else in the middle east. Surely we can have that voice and make it clear from this House that we support a ceasefire now.

James Morris: I am sure that there is much to welcome in the King’s Speech and much to ponder on the theme of “breaking down barriers to opportunity”, but I was warmed to my theme by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is no longer in his place. I always find him entertaining in the House—I always disagree with everything he says—but I think he is entertaining as Shakespeare’s clowns are entertaining. Today marks the 400th anniversary of the publication of Shakespeare’s first folio, which was the first time that Shakespeare’s plays were published in a printed edition. There were 36 plays in that first folio. Shakespeare is being celebrated across the media today, so, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Shakespeare, I thought it would be remiss not to mark this significant anniversary.
The folio probably represents a foundational moment in our culture, and it is relevant to today’s debate on opportunity. Some of my constituents and others might be saying, “Why is the MP for Halesowen and Rowley Regis talking about a dead playwright? Why is he important? What has he got to say about our contemporary world?” I would argue that the folio gives us an opportunity to reassert the continued importance of Shakespeare’s works in the modern world, particularly in our cultural heritage and education system. The performance and understanding of Shakespeare’s plays is essential for the education of our young people.
I recently took part as a judge in a competition organised by the Coram Shakespeare Schools Foundation, which asked young people to reimagine a Shakespeare speech in the contemporary world. Some incredibly creative ideas were put forward.
The discipline required to understand Shakespeare is vital. Many of us may have had bad experiences at school. I remember studying “As You Like It” at O-level, and that put me off—it took me until I was doing an English degree five years later to get into Shakespeare. But the discipline and creativity of putting on performances are critical to the education of our young people and the protection of the cultural heritage. Shakespeare is a central part of our national culture.
I want to mention the Rose Revealed project in Southwark. In 1989, archaeological digs were done under a building in Southwark, which revealed one of the original Shakespearean theatres—the Rose theatre—where some of the plays of Shakespeare and Marlow were performed. The second phase of the project is to do further work on that site to create an exhibition centre celebrating the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, with a broader vision to create an Elizabethan quarter on that side of the river in London. Many other organisations across the country support Shakespeare education and the performance of Shakespeare: the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and my alma mater the University of Birmingham, which has the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford doing incredibly important work to promulgate Shakespeare and promote his works.
There is a second reason why celebrating and talking about the folio and Shakespeare is important today. We live in a time when the international order is under threat. We have conflicts throughout the world: the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we have spoken about the situation in Israel and Gaza. Members may ask, “What does Shakespeare have to do with that?” As I mentioned in a recent Prime Minister’s question after Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit, I know from my contacts with the Ukrainian Shakespeare Centre that Shakespeare’s plays—in particular, Hamlet—have been put on in air raid shelters in Ukraine as an act of defiance against Russian aggression. That is an incredibly powerful statement of how a great example of our culture can be used to support democratic values and assert the power of creativity against brazen aggression.
In that sense, Shakespeare is part of our soft power. What do we mean by soft power? I had a conversation with Professor Michael Dobson, who runs the Shakespeare Institute, who said that Shakespeare’s plays and their performances are a kind of conversation in which he represents humanity in all its plurality in an eloquent and vigorous way. Shakespeare characterises all that is best in British culture, while still inviting those of other cultures to join that conversation. Shakespeare is an important part of our soft power, but not in the sense that he is a commodity we can trade around the world. Those plays and performances are a critical way of bringing people together and asserting the power of creativity in our world. That is an important dimension of why we need to celebrate the folio today.
Let me come to my final point about why I am banging on about Shakespeare in the Kings Speech. Feste, a character in “Twelfth Night”, said:
“I can yield you none without words, and words are grown so false I am loath to prove reason with them”.
Shakespeare wrote those words all that time ago, but in our politics, in some ways, words have become false and it is very difficult to prove reason with them, because we  are living in this world dominated by social media, the soundbite and—sometimes—false language on both sides of the political divide. It is important that this House considers and celebrates the first folio anniversary, because perhaps we can learn from Shakespeare’s eloquence and the conversation that is the central feature of his plays, as we seek to resolve some of the most profound domestic and international difficulties that we have faced for many years.

Wera Hobhouse: The Government are out of ideas and without direction, either unwilling or unable to make the big decisions to give us a brighter future. What a wasted opportunity, especially when it comes to action to tackle the nature and climate crisis. What better opportunity was there to empower communities and businesses to break down barriers to tackle the biggest issue of our generation? I am pleased that the Government announced recently that they will introduce a natural history GCSE, but considering the abysmal nature of what was in the King’s Speech on tackling the climate crisis, it seems to me that the Prime Minister should be the first person to take it.
Climate education should not stop with schools; local authorities could organise citizens’ assemblies, as we have proposed many times. There are so many opportunities to educate people about the dangers of our not getting this right and failing to reach our 1.5° target by 2050, but those on the Government Front Bench continue to ignore them. They continue, too, to ignore the opportunities that would arise from a green transition. A nature or climate GCSE could grow the careers and skills we need to tackle the climate emergency and get to net zero, but this Government’s attitude is that everyone except them must meet their commitments.
Rather than protecting our children’s future, the Government are protecting the interests of the fossil fuel giants. How can they seriously claim to be leaders on net zero action while introducing legislation to hold annual oil and gas licensing rounds? That is particularly shocking when compared with their unforgivable failure to allocate a single new contract for difference for onshore wind farms in the recent auction round. I would like to hear how the new legislation will bring down energy bills for a single one of my constituents. Research from Uplift confirms that most of the oil produced at Rosebank will be shipped abroad and sold on the global market to the highest bidder; it will secure the future of the oil and gas giants, but not the UK’s energy supply.
Not only does the new Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill fly in the face of our climate commitments, but it will have wide-ranging and long-term negative impacts on the sustainability of our oceans and marine life. As I say, we need education on this across the House and across the board in all our communities. Educating young children is a good start, but it seems to me that a lot more of the older generations need that education too.
When will this Tory Government embrace the clean, green energy of the future and stop delaying our path to net zero? We need more grid capacity and more Government action to capitalise on green jobs and technology. New green jobs do not fall out of the sky; they start with proper career options for young people that they can start now so that we can see the energy transformation we need.
We hear from Tory Ministers that they hope to attract more investment in renewables, but their words do not match their actions. We cannot afford for our Government to miss any more of their own targets. That, too, should be part of our education—that if we say we will do something, we should actually deliver. We must take people with us on the green transition, and education is the first step.
There are so many untapped opportunities. UK solar power deployment is already significantly behind target. The smart export guarantee should incentivise households to invest in solar panels by allowing them to sell the excess electricity they produce back to the grid at a better price and recover the cost of their investment much faster. Again, educating householders in how they can invest in the net zero transition is an important part of the puzzle. If we do not communicate properly with our citizens about what they can do to tackle the climate crisis, where will we be?
Under the current system, it takes decades for householders to break even. Householders are confused, and we need to ensure that there are trusted sources where they can obtain information about how to tackle the climate crisis and break down the barriers that we are discussing today. There must be that change to bring about the revolution in rooftop solar that carries so many benefits for people and the planet. The cheapest energy is the energy that we do not use, and reducing energy waste will lower bills and cut carbon emissions. We urgently need to upgrade our housing stock to guarantee warm and comfortable homes for everyone, long into the future.
One in four private renters live in fuel poverty, and 1.6 million children are living in privately rented cold, damp or mouldy homes. Landlords have contacted me saying that they cannot afford to upgrade their properties to energy-efficient standards. That, too, is just a bit of education, a bit of knowledge that we must share as a matter of urgency. I believe that local councils are best placed to be the trusted sources of that type of information, but the Government must see them as partners and people to engage with, and give them the opportunities and resources that they need in order to share the information that is so badly needed in our communities.
Some subsidy schemes are available to landlords, but they are not open to all landlords and they can be difficult to access. We Liberal Democrats propose that all landlords should be allowed to offset their spending on insulation and energy-saving improvements against their income tax. Only through well-targeted incentives for landlords will we make the difference for tenants who are struggling to pay their bills. If the Government disagree with our proposals, I ask them to suggest an alternative. All we have seen so far is that from 2025 landlords will no longer need to meet the energy performance certificate C standard.
There has been yet more delay. When will we see action to ensure that families do not live in poor-quality housing that is badly insulated, making their energy bills more expensive? We need the landlords on board. We need a Government who are prepared to use both a carrot and a stick, and we need a Government who are prepared to put out the necessary information and enable it to be pooled—and I would say, yet again, that councils are best placed to do that. E3G has found that raising the energy standard to C rating for privately  rented homes would save bill payers about £570 a year. The Government should hold firm, and help landlords to meet these targets and keep homes warm this winter.
Since the last King’s Speech, we have not reduced our dependence on oil and gas, we have not allowed households to make more sustainable choices, we have not put out that important piece of education that people need, we have not organised the citizens’ assemblies for the sharing of information that we require so urgently, and we have not protected households from rising energy bills. Too many households face another difficult winter. The Government’s failure to deliver is becoming their trademark, and judging by the King’s speech that will not change any time soon, although I still hold out hope that it will. The Government should prove me wrong—or right.

John Martin McDonnell: I fear that the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Shakespeare, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), has opened a can of worms with his quotations. I hate to say this, but most of us feel that yesterday was Much Ado About Nothing. In fact, I think it was less Shakespeare and more “upstart crow”.
I listened to the Secretary of State’s introduction to the debate. We have heard her personal history a number of times, and there is the benefit of not having to buy the inevitable autobiography when it comes out, but I would have expected her to have learnt, as most of us have, that it is best for children to maximise their educational opportunities when they go to school, and if they are to do that, they should not be going to school hungry. What worried me about the King’s Speech was that there was no attempt to address the problems of poverty in our society.
I am never completely sure what the debate on the King’s Speech is about, because we know what the Government are going to do and there is little influence we can have on them. To a certain extent, though, now that we have the autumn statement, maybe this is an attempt to shout through the Chancellor’s letterbox to say that there are issues that the King’s Speech has not addressed, and one of them is poverty. I do not want to rattle through the figures too much, but we all know that 14 million of our fellow citizens are living in poverty at the moment, that 4.2 million of them are children, and that two thirds of those children are living in households where someone is at work. What does that say about low pay?
The Government also need to be clear that unemployment is rising steadily. We now have up to 1.5 million unemployed. When I was first on the shop floor, unemployment benefit did actually get people through. Back then it was 28% of the average wage, but now it is 13%, so we are forcing people who are unemployed into a life of poverty. The number of people certified as unfit to work is also rising rapidly, and I think part of that is because many of them are on the 7.9 million-long waiting list for operations and treatments to get them back into work.
I can remember having a debate in this House nearly five years ago when the UN rapporteur Philip Alston reported on our social security system and its implications for people in our society living in poverty. He said that our social security system meant
“the systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population”.
That shocked us, because he also started using a word that we had not used for generations: “destitution.” Last week, his successor Olivier de Schutter reported that the situation was getting significantly worse.
If we do not believe the UN rapporteur, then the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which we have cited across the House time and again when we have needed advice on how to tackle poverty, reports that 3.8 million in our country are now living in destitution, including 1 million children. It defines destitution as
“when people cannot afford to meet their most basic physical needs to stay warm, dry, clean and fed”.
It reports that destitution has increased by 148% since 2017. That is not a society any of us wants to live in. I have looked at the foundation’s detailed research, but what I found most interesting was when it actually talked to people and asked them, “Just give us an example of your experience.” There is a whole list of quotes, but this is the one that got to me:
“Me and my partner survive on one meal a day. We make sure my daughter is eating. She has three meals a day, but me and my partner, we are lucky if we have one meal a day.”
That cannot be right, can it? In any society, that cannot be right.
There is a whole series of other quotes in which people talk about going hungry because the food bank is open for only a limited number of days, or because they get only so many discretionary opportunities to receive food from the food bank. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) said, the number of people using food banks has shot through the roof again.
So this is an appeal to the Chancellor to do something in the autumn statement, in a couple of weeks’ time, to help our children out of poverty. In the pandemic, it was recognised by the Government that the safety net was not working, so with our unanimous support they added an extra £20 a week to universal credit to see people through. That needs to be done now, just as a first step. The cost would be between £5.5 billion and £6 billion. That sounds a lot, but given the overall weight of Government spending and the impact it could have on lifting children out of poverty, it would be a significant investment. We have also previously debated scrapping the two-child limit, which would lift 250,000 children out of poverty. I also want to make sure that children are not going hungry, which is why free school meals for all pupils will be critical as a foundation stone for the future.
In many of our areas we have people living in poverty because they cannot afford the rent. On Sunday night, a family of constituents came to my home. They are in a property in my constituency. To get on a council housing list, you have to live there 10 years and then you have to wait for five or six years. By that time, some children have grown up. This family came into my house and we sat down. Both parents are in work—one works in childcare—but they cannot afford the rent because the housing allowance no longer anywhere near matches what is needed. The Government need to now consider ending the housing allowance freeze and restoring it just to the 2015 level of 50% of market rents.
There is a brutal form of social security policy in this country: no recourse to public funds. What that means is that the children of migrants, who have done nothing to deserve it, are forced into poverty because their family has no recourse to public funds. I urge the Government and the Chancellor in the autumn statement to do something to lift our children out of poverty. There is a range of measures that are completely affordable and that could have a dramatic impact on the lives of children in our country.
A final point from me: no debate can go on without mentioning the children of Gaza—the 4,000 who have been killed and the 1,000 we think are under the rubble. That is why our calls today for a ceasefire are so important. Sometimes when we have these debates, political calculation overtakes us. When we come into the Chamber, our humanity and sometimes our ability to express our concerns ends there because of the politics of a situation. I thought we saw today, across the House in many respects, the real concern there is about the children of Gaza. I just hope the Government can bring themselves to lead the call for an immediate ceasefire, because I cannot see any other solution to ending that suffering.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He always focuses on child poverty in these debates, and that is the right thing to do. What he refers to in his constituency is replicated across the whole United Kingdom. On food banks, for instance, just last week in my Strangford constituency there was a front-page article about food banks. There has been not a 16% increase in the use of food banks, but a 72% increase. That is incredibly worrying. It is not just those on low incomes who are finding it harder and harder to pay their bills; it is also those on middle incomes. He is right to make those points and I support him entirely.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. What a poignant first speech delivered by His Majesty the King in his role. It was a privilege to be a part of that audience yesterday, to witness his instructions for the delivery of the Government’s aims, and to today represent the good people of my constituency of Strangford, his loyal subjects, as we seek to ensure that the needs of our community are met within those aims. Watching the pomp, pageantry, tradition and history—the whole procession and the King’s Speech for the start of Parliament—makes me feel incredibly proud to be British.
I very much welcome the apprenticeship scheme that the Secretary of State outlined. I also welcome the measures on childcare provision—good news. It might be low-hanging fruit, but the tobacco legislation is also to be welcomed. It may not be earth-shattering as such, but it is important because it will, hopefully, make a change. I also welcome the increase in Ministry of Defence spending. My request within that Government commitment is that perhaps we could look at recruiting more Territorial Army personnel in Northern Ireland. The reserve forces in Northern Ireland are well-recruited. There are opportunities and I believe we should be doing more, legislatively, to ensure that people can  join the Royal Navy, the Army and the RAF in Northern Ireland.
I want to make three points, so I will call it a Presbyterian sermon. I am not a Presbyterian, although I am married to one—I am a Baptist—but a Presbyterian sermon is in three parts.

John Martin McDonnell: There is a hint of Catholicism there.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Gentleman always has a good point to make.
The title of today’s debate, “Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity,” resonates with me in a few ways. I seek assurance from the Government that their commitment to breaking down barriers extends to Northern Ireland. I secured a Westminster Hall debate before Prorogation on contracts for difference, and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has just spoken about the importance of having them in place. I know the Minister will forgive me for raising the matter again so soon, but this is a new Session with new goals and, I hope, a new approach. Contracts for difference are much wider than simply an energy issue; they are also about the Northern Ireland economy.
I am a great believer that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is better together and, for me, it is important that we all feel the benefits of the King’s Speech by making sure that Northern Ireland plays its part in the economy of this great nation. It is about building a Northern Ireland supply chain, and Northern Ireland’s desire to contribute to the Government’s net-zero target and to reaching that target together equally across this great kingdom. It is about jobs. It is about science, technology, engineering and maths opportunities for ladies and women. It is about new skills, as the Education Secretary said, and it is about Northern Ireland’s desire to be an integral part of providing support for low-carbon delivery across the four nations of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I love history, and it is no secret that I love this place. It always resonates with me that the four nations become one in Central Lobby, which is what I hope for. The barriers to opportunity must be torn down, and I look to the Government to make sure that happens through the contracts for difference scheme.
I know the Government intend to commit over £1.6 billion to the green climate fund—the biggest single international climate pledge that the UK has ever made—yet I feel there is a barrier within the UK, which can be brought down to help achieve our climate pledge while improving the local economy in Northern Ireland. Extending contracts for difference to Northern Ireland is an essential component of that work, and I hope Northern Ireland’s barrier to opportunity will be broken down. Green energy can deliver job opportunities, so we must break down that barrier.
The obvious barrier to opportunity in Northern Ireland is the Irish sea border. That physical barrier is detrimental to all in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister made only a fleeting reference to Northern Ireland yesterday, and the fact is that this issue has not been resolved. He referred to the Union, but he did  not go into any details. As someone who believes in  the Union, I would have loved to hear more from the Prime Minister.
The barrier to democracy erected by the European Union is still fully in place, as my constituents are subject to laws created by a process in which they have no elected representation. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) is also here, and we both recognise that local representation makes an important difference. At the moment, we are denied that representation. The barrier remains, as the DUP remains unable to take its place in devolved authority at Stormont until further steps are taken to restore our opportunity to operate as a fully functional member of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I now move on to the third part of my Presbyterian sermon. I say this respectfully to the Minister—I always try to be reasonable in my comments—but the Government continue to bury their head in the sand on child benefit thresholds. This is DUP policy, and we moved a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject before Prorogation. I have raised this issue over and again, and I will continue to do so until the Government acknowledge that the 10-year freeze equates to a reduction in child benefit thresholds. It has created barriers to opportunity, and to much-needed extra funds, for working families, which is unacceptable. It is a barrier not only for us in Northern Ireland, but for us all in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is a barrier in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
Another barrier to opportunity for working families throughout the UK is that they are afraid of accepting small pay rises for fear of dealing with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and that while prices have escalated, their wage is stagnant. Something has to break and it must not be, and never can be, the working family. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to that clearly and I am saying the same thing. For them, I ask the Government to include this matter in the list of priorities for this coming year.
I am coming to the end of my speech, within the timescale that you asked us all to adhere to, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, let me highlight that all of us here have the tools not only to build barriers in society, but to break them down. Let us break them down together and make sure that we make the right choice, prioritising our economy, our Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and our working families in this new Session. May God bless the King, and this Government, as they deliver his and their goals and aims in this year.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for sticking to the guidance. As I said, I am more relaxed now, because there have been a couple of drop-outs.

Vicky Foxcroft: On the anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, I have to say that it is disappointing that not much in the King’s Speech delivered for disabled people. After 13 years of Conservative-led Governments, disabled people feel that they are an afterthought and that their rights are not fully protected and promoted in this country. It is shocking that we are still having these conversations in 2023. Progress has gone backwards,  not forwards. It is well documented that the pandemic and the cost of living crisis have had a disproportionate effect on disabled people. That comes on top of the fact that extra costs are already associated with having a disability.
Earlier this year, disability equality charity Scope released updated research on the extra costs associated with having a disability—the so-called disability price tag. When Scope last calculated the price tag, in 2019, it stood at an average of £583 per month for households containing at least one disabled person. Over the past four years, that has risen to a shocking £975 per month, which equates to 63% of household income. That means that disabled households need to find almost £12,000 extra per year to achieve the same living standards as non-disabled households. The impact of the rising costs is exacerbated by the fact that disabled people also tend to have lower than average incomes. In its January 2023 report, the Resolution Foundation found that the gap in household income in respect of adults with a disability and adults without one was about 30% when including disability benefits, and 44% when excluding them.
Ministers tell us that they have brought forth a number of measures to improve disabled people’s rights and tackle the barriers they continue to face, so let us have a look at some of them in turn. First, we come to the national disability strategy, which was announced in the 2019 Queen’s Speech. The strategy was much delayed before its eventual publication, in the summer recess of 2021. Although claiming to be bold, it introduced little new policy for disabled people and instead relied on other pieces of Government work. It was then held up by a lengthy court case brought by disabled people who disputed whether the consultation process had been lawful. Had the Government engaged in proper co-production, the court case would not have been necessary.
Next came the disability action plan, which was quietly announced in December last year. After months of waiting, the proposals for the plan were published during the summer recess—again—and the consultation closed a month ago. Disappointingly, the plan does not contain a cohesive set of actions to bring about the changes disabled people so desperately need.
Thirdly, we have the health and disability White Paper that sets out some plans to reform employment support and disability benefit. Its most significant proposal is the scrapping of the work capability assessments, which has left many people concerned that the system will rely solely on the flawed personal independence payment assessment.
All this should be considered in the context of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which seeks to ensure that disabled people’s rights are promoted and protected. In 2016, an investigation found that “grave or systemic violations” of disabled people’s rights had taken place because of welfare reforms in the UK since 2010. In 2017, at the first periodic review, the Conservative Government were judged to have taken insufficient action to implement earlier recommendations. The next review is ongoing, but the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who was  on the Front Bench earlier and I wish was now, caused further concern by refusing to attend an evidence session in August 2023.
The Government must do better. Twenty-four per cent of the UK population identify as disabled, and we must stop letting them down. We must break down the barriers that exist in society. Ministers should be taking every opportunity they can to co-produce policy with disabled people, who are the experts by experience, and to ensure that their needs are being met in every part of life.

Jim McMahon: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). I thank her for the work she does and for being a champion for disabled people.
Watching the King’s Speech was quite an occasion, as it is a moment in history. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) painted a picture of how significant it was, but the irony was not lost that the King arrived in a gold-plated, horse-drawn carriage to announce legislation on banning pedicabs at Westminster tube. It just shows that, however grand the occasion, there is nothing like a Conservative Government to bring it down into the gutter—and much else did follow that.
The test of any King’s Speech must be whether it makes life materially better for the people we are all here to represent, and whether it makes the country we love stronger, more confident and more resilient in the face of global uncertainty. By those measures, it can only be marked as another missed opportunity.
It is a missed opportunity to address one of the biggest economic challenges our country faces. The very bond of the British contract is broken—the promise that if people are willing to work hard and play by the rules, in return they can get on in life and do well, and that through our generational effort, our children can go on to do even better. That contract has not just been reneged on; it has been torn up. People in Chadderton, Oldham West and Royton, and right across Britain, know that and they feel the betrayal every single day: families working all the hours God sends, but still unable to make ends meet; young people starting off in life unable to get on the housing ladder; and older people denied the care they need and deserve to live well into older life.
It is a fact that life has always been challenging for working people, but it has not always been this grinding. There was so much missing from the King’s Speech on social care, the environment and nature, child protection and a range of other issues. It was completely hollow and void of ideas and solutions to the issues facing the country. As the proud chair of the Co-operative party, it is disappointing to see the Government fail to take the opportunity provided by the King’s Speech to seize the many solutions put forward by our movement to address those challenges.
As Labour’s sister party for almost a century, co-operators believe in enterprise, grassroots organisation, and that the wealth and value we create together can and should be used to build stronger communities and stronger economies that we can all share in. We believe, too, that ownership matters, because it drives decision making  and ultimately determines where the dividend is returned. On energy, for instance, the Labour and Co-operative parties together have a shared commitment to bringing back community energy as a blueprint to safeguarding energy security and investing in cheap, clean renewable energy that is produced and owned right here in the UK. Instead of investing in non-renewables that help only multinational oil and gas giants, the Government should be backing local communities to produce and own their own renewable energy. Labour’s local power plan sets out how to do that, with a bold ambition for 1 million new owners of energy producing 8 GW of energy by 2030.
We also fail to see any action on retail crime, despite an announcement in the Criminal Justice Bill. It is a crisis and a blight on our high streets that stores such as the Co-op Group are victims of significant retail crime. The Co-op Group reports that 175,000 incidents were recorded in the first six months of this year alone. Retail crime should be a stand-alone offence. Shopworkers enforce the laws set by this House, and they should be afforded the protection of it, too.
The Government’s agenda for this Session also neglected to address the ownership that people desperately need over their local communities and the places that really matter to them. Our high streets have been hollowed out. We see the empty, boarded-up buildings; the pubs, shops and community hubs on which we have relied closing down; and the services on which people depend disappearing. Again, the Labour and Co-operative parties can contribute to the solution. By strengthening the Localism Act 2011 and introducing a genuine community right to buy, we can address head-on that issue of community loss. We can encourage communities to come together to buy at-risk pubs, shops and other assets to make sure that they are protected for future generations.
We believe that words are one thing, but there is nothing like action to show what change can achieve. For instance, in my own constituency, when the Daisyfield Inn, a local pub in Bardsley, was at risk of closure, we managed to secure an asset of community value protection on the register of that building. Now, not only has it been retained for the local community, but it has a community allotment out back to help local people fight isolation and to bring the community together even more. It can be done; the model is there, but we can do even more.
Oldham Athletic Football Club, our pride, is now backed by local power, because Boundary Park and the fields next door used for training—Little Wembley—are now also an asset of community value. We recognise that, beyond the bricks and mortar, these are meeting places—they are the fabric, the glue, the identity, the belonging, the past, the present and, with effort, the future, too. Another blueprint for change offered by the Labour and Co-operative parties—yet another chance missed by the Government—really breaking down the barriers that we are talking about here today.
People feel that the economy is not working for them, and that power is being taken away from them. We believe that if we can double the size of the co-operative sector, where more people have a stake in the future, where businesses are rooted in the community, and where decisions are being made for the benefit of the community, not for short-term dividend payment extraction,  we will see an economy that is more resilient and more robust, and that will benefit the UK as well. It has been proved that these businesses are more productive, more resilient, and more equitable, because co-operatives are more than twice as likely to survive the early years of trading when compared with other styles of businesses. We have seen that in huge sectors right across the UK. With just a little more effort, we can see them grow even further.
What would that mean for the UK? According to research commissioned by Co-operatives UK, just last year alone the turnover of the co-operatives in the UK contributed £41 billion to the UK economy, an increase of 3.7% on the previous year. This is not a small-fry contribution; it is a significant part of our economy. Instead of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a small number of people at the top, ownership is spread in the communities where the co-operatives operate. That is important for the local community and important for the country overall.
In the end, what we see from the King’s Speech is what we have seen for the past 13 years: a country that is fragmented socially and economically and a Government who have run out of road, out of ideas and out of solutions to fix those problems. Surely the only way now to repair the cracks in the foundations and to give Britain hope again is to call a general election, not provide a King’s Speech.

Kerry McCarthy: We might have a new monarch on the throne, but what we saw yesterday was a complete abdication of responsibility from the Government, who have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) just said, completely run out of ideas. With no answers to the cost of living crisis and other problems of their own making over the past 13 years, their default response now is just to distract, delay and, as we see with the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, sow division through political point scoring, rather than doing what is right for this country’s economic future and for the planet. The Energy Secretary herself has conceded that we cannot rely on that Bill to bring energy bills down, so who does benefit from the Bill, if not consumers? Could it be the oil and gas companies, making record profits, which are handed billions in taxpayer subsidies?
Doubling down on fossil fuels is not the answer. Clean, cheap home-grown energy is the only way to make us energy secure. As the Prime Minister stumbles in the starting blocks in the race for net zero, or indeed seems to be going backwards, Labour stands ready to lead the sprint for renewables with all the opportunities that they will bring—whether it is green jobs in communities that are making the transition away from dirty fossil fuels; whether it is community power, which we have heard about; or whether it is economic regeneration and technical advances. There is so much potential.
It was a relief that the Renters (Reform) Bill came back before Parliament just before Parliament prorogued and was carried over, but frankly the Bill is not good enough. The ban on no-fault evictions is still being kicked down the road, for probably years into the future. More than 60,000 section 21 notices have been served since the promise to ban them was first made.  While we wait for the Government to act, thousands more will become homeless through no fault of their own—victims of a Government pandering to the wealthy property-owners on their Back Benches.
The Renters (Reform) Bill was supposed to transform the private rented sector, but it will remain legal for landlords to discriminate against tenants on benefits. There will be no statutory decent home standard in the private sector, and local housing allowances will remain frozen, meaning that the vast majority of privately rented homes in places such as Bristol will remain unaffordable for people on housing benefit. Given that we have not heard anything from the Government this week, I certainly hope that we will see something on that in the autumn statement. We talk about opportunity. The opportunity to have a decent home and a roof over their head is being denied to so many.
I am pleased that the leasehold and freehold Bill will be introduced. Even the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has admitted that the leasehold system is “outdated” and “feudal”, but it is disappointing to see such a half-hearted attempt at reform again. It is good to see a ban on leaseholds for new houses, but houses make up only 30% of leasehold homes in England. There is no reason why flat-owners deserve less protection and higher costs. That is yet another Tory U-turn that will leave far too many flat-owners facing extortionate bills and ground rents for homes that they already own. Given that the Home Secretary’s recent announcement on tents was not taken up, at least they will be safe in the knowledge that they can switch to sleeping under a dual carriageway in a little tent of their own for the foreseeable future.
I am trying to be positive, but there is not a lot to go on. That is evidenced by the fact that no Tory MPs are waiting to speak, and the last Tory MP who did speak, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), managed to get through 10 minutes without mentioning anything at all in the King’s Speech, though he told us an awful lot about Shakespeare, which I guess was educational in its own way.
I am pleased that we are finally getting a Bill to ban live exports, even if it has been more than seven years since we heard all those promises during the 2016 referendum campaign. It was one of the Leave campaign’s flagship things. I know people who voted for Brexit only because they thought that there would be a ban on live exports, so it has taken the Government a long time, and where are the other promises that were made on banning imports of fur and foie gras? They were supposed to be a Brexit bonus too.
In another example of better late than never, I welcome the long-overdue football governance Bill, finally giving us a chance to realise recommendations from the fan-led football review. We desperately need greater parity across the footballing pyramid in this country to protect the future of the game and ensure that the excessive wealth of the top clubs reaches the lower leagues and grassroots football.
On crime, of course Labour supports the need to bring in tough sentences for serious and violent offenders, but this is not the first time the Conservative Government have made such promises. Since 2010, almost 4,000 convicted rapists have received sentences of less than  seven years. It is no surprise that this Government are all talk and no action. We have a record backlog in our courts, with more than 65,000 cases waiting to be heard in the Crown courts. That is thousands of victims waiting for justice to be done. Two thirds of English and Welsh prisons are overcrowded and as of last month we had barely 500 prison places left, which raises the question of where those extra prisoners will go. That is just not joined-up thinking; again, it is making grand statements without making the investment in our public realm that is needed to back up those promises.
This debate is as much about what was not in the King’s Speech as what was in it. There was no mention of the long-awaited employment Bill or pensions reform; no register of children out of school; no commitment to reform the dental contract, which dentists and my constituents are crying out for and which Labour will deliver; and nothing on tackling the climate or nature emergencies. I am told we will need primary legislation to ratify the global ocean treaty, which the UK signed with some fanfare earlier this year. Where is that legislation? It will be a very short piece of legislation, but why the delay?
It is not as if this is a Government bursting with ideas, full of ambition and struggling to find space in the parliamentary timetable for all the urgent and inspirational things they want to do. We will have to wait for next year’s King’s Speech for that. Given that the Government seem to have so few ideas, why have they stalled on some of the things we already know they have been looking at? Where is the mental health Bill, for example? We have had the draft Bill and plenty of time for pre-legislative scrutiny, so why is this Bill dragging on and running out of time when reform is so desperately needed? And why, five years on, are the Government still procrastinating over a ban on so-called conversion therapies? LGBT+ people deserve better than to be told that their sexuality or gender identity can be cured. When will the Government follow Labour’s example and back a full, inclusive conversion therapy ban?
What this King’s Speech reveals is that we have a Government devoid of compassion, of leadership and of conscience, exemplified by a Home Secretary who describes homelessness as a “lifestyle choice”. Demonising the most vulnerable in society is a political choice. Overseeing the managed decline of the NHS is a political choice. Trashing the UK’s international climate reputation is a political choice. Letting that trickle-down mini-Budget crash our economy last autumn and lead us into a cost of living crisis was a political choice. Those are the actions of a Tory Government who for 13 years have put self-interest over the interests of the country. It is time to give the people of Britain a chance to choose. This King’s Speech shows that the country needs a general election and a Labour Government.

Stewart McDonald: When we scrape away all the pomp, the ceremony and the pageantry of yesterday, there is a consensus—on the Opposition Benches at least, if it has not yet dawned on the Conservative side—that this is a decaying Government who are not really governing. Rather, they are presiding over a country in decline. That is evidenced by the acres of empty green Benches on the Government side of the House. Our job is to be unconvinced by the Government,  but the Conservatives are so unconvinced by their own legislative agenda that only one Back Bencher has joined them for this part of the debate—the best part, if I say so myself, since I got to my feet.
This Government are defined by chaos and falling from crisis to crisis, and my constituents certainly cannot wait to see the back of them. They are completely unfit for the challenges that all our constituents face today. They have no clue, I believe, about the scale of the challenge and no comprehension of what is required to meet the social, economic, political and global insecurities that rip through communities up and down the country.
We could have had a King’s Speech rooted in prosperity, rooted in resilience, rooted in that word that the Conservatives love to use: aspiration. We could have had a King’s Speech about tackling the big challenges of our time and seeking consensus for the long-term structural changes needed to take on those policy challenges, whether they be improving living standards, which our constituents are desperately crying out for—our living standards are falling massively behind those of our western European counterparts, and the Government do not even seem to recognise that, never mind have a plan to deal with it properly—or our decaying national infrastructure and public services. The Conservatives have managed to turn climate change into a culture war issue, with all kinds of nonsense on the issue of the net zero transition coming not just from some junior Parliamentary Private Secretary, but from the Prime Minister himself. Look at global affairs and international security.
All those challenges require a sensible, level-headed approach, but we have a Government who know their days are numbered and are rushing to an imaginary constituency based on about 500 people in the constituency of the previous Prime Minister but one, where even opposition to clean air zones will set and define their governing and political strategy. It hardly instils any confidence when we see the Prime Minister—quite correctly—trying to form a global coalition to deal with things such as the regulation of artificial intelligence, but using that summit as an audition for a job back in California. In the Bills set out in the King’s Speech, many of which are old announcements simply being re-announced, we see a poverty of ambition that my constituents certainly cannot afford.
I know that this is the great unspoken iron-clad consensus between the two main parties in this Chamber, but we also have not seen a plan to deal with the damage of Brexit. That is an issue that will not even speak its name, but it has damaged us—it has damaged our standing internationally, it has damaged our economy, and it has damaged the country’s reputation with our closest neighbours in Europe. We have not even started to think about the huge project of rebuilding and strategic redesign of the public realm, public services and national institutions needed post-pandemic. Nobody talks about “building back better” any longer—it has almost been erased from the public consciousness and public debate—yet we know that that is exactly what will be needed.
And yes, many colleagues on both sides of the House have said much that I agree with in terms standing up for the international rules-based order, which is massively challenged by a war in Europe right now, and, of course, by the situation between Israel and Gaza. If someone calls for a ceasefire to that conflict, they are somehow labelled an extremist, and we have a Home Secretary  who wants to turn it into a culture war issue by describing those protesting for a ceasefire as taking part in “hate marches”. Are we to believe that the Home Secretary—one of the great offices of state—really believed that tens of thousands of antisemites marched through the streets of London, and her response was to write an open letter? Her position would be untenable if that were actually the case. But so radicalised and desperate to lead her party has she become—presumably when they are on the Opposition Benches—and so weak is the Prime Minister in not reining her in, never mind thinking about sacking her, that this is the position of the Conservative party today.
I am not a conservative, but we need a Conservative party that is at least rooted in the real world. There are many good Conservative Members, some of whom I have personal friendships with, and there might even be one or two here right now—let us not overstate it, mind you—but I say to them: “Take your party back from this madness, because it drags the entire political country into the sewer, and we all deserve much better than that.” All this nonsense about homelessness being a “lifestyle choice”, and wanting to attack charity workers who hand out tents to give people a semblance of shelter from the rain and the cold. What is this rubbish? They have the cheek to call themselves Conservatives, but they have contempt for institutions, contempt for the law, contempt for norms. Conserve what exactly? A Conservative party utterly unrecognisable to its own traditions—many of which are fine; many of which I do not agree with—and massively out of control. Think of the challenges we face—climate change, technology, ageing populations and all the rest of it—and the institutions we need in order to meet those challenges. In, I think, a report for a think-tank, the former Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill said recently that Palmerston would recognise many of the institutions that exist on Whitehall today.
This month marks 25 years since the passing and signing of the Scotland Act 1998 that established the Scottish Parliament—an institution that the Government detest with every fibre of their being. It has increasingly become a Parliament that is about mitigating the worst excesses of the Government’s agenda and policies over many, many years. I do not want a Parliament of mitigation; I want a Parliament of aspiration. Scotland can only become prosperous, fair and resilient, and its aspirations can only really be realised, when it becomes independent and is back in the European Union.

Janet Daby: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), and to represent my Lewisham East constituents as we debate breaking down barriers to opportunity and other relevant issues. However, it is concerning to me—as I know it is to the public—that the Government have not addressed in the King’s Speech the many crises that impact our country.
Because of 13 years of Conservative Government, we have seen multiple failings. To name a few, we have seen a failure to tackle the cost of living crisis; the shameful watering down of net zero targets; the mishandling of the covid-19 pandemic; the personal protective equipment scandal; partygate; the wrecking of the economy through an unfunded mini-Budget; constant incidents of sleaze; and court delays and backlogs. We have already heard  about many of those issues in the Chamber today. We have also seen high mortgages and rents; school buildings crumbling; sewage pouring into our streams and rivers, while water companies are allowed to get away with paying large bonuses; long NHS waiting lists; a shortage of doctors and nurses; and an inability to get GP and dentist appointments.
The cost of living crisis has seen a hike in the cost of food, high gas bills, high electricity bills and high rents. People are even struggling to buy clothing and furniture, and children are going to school hungry. The use of food banks is becoming a norm—they are used by middle wage earners and low wage earners, by people on benefits and people on none. It is an example of deprivation, disadvantage and, ultimately, poverty existing in our country. I have to ask: is this the best the Conservative Government have for our country? It is shameful. Some people are not able to wash their clothes or to have frequent showers. Poverty is on the increase, and this Government are closing their eyes to it.
Child poverty stops our young people from reaching their full potential. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the number of people experiencing extreme poverty increased by 61% between 2019 and 2022. Children are particularly hard hit: the number of children experiencing destitution has almost tripled. Furthermore, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, there is evidence that children from minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty. That is not acceptable, but the Government have not addressed it. Why have they not done so?
The King’s Speech clearly does nothing to combat the major challenges facing families in Lewisham East and across our country. Meanwhile, Labour will provide breakfast clubs in every primary school to prevent children from coming to school hungry, which will break down the barriers to learning. A potential Labour Government will ensure that there are more specialist teachers, a modern curriculum and better training and apprenticeships, so that every child and young person is geared up to learn and ready for work. Housing is also crucial to support a child’s learning—a warm home and no overcrowding, as well as a place to eat, to study, to play and to sleep, and no mould or damp.
Why is it so difficult for this Government to support their people and their country? Is it because of five Prime Minister and seven Chancellors in 13 years? Labour will improve the standard of living for families and communities, and it will build, build, build more homes. In fact, if elected, Labour will build 1.5 million homes over the next Parliament. It will also ensure that people receive a fair wage. We need to raise the floor on wages to reverse the Tories’ low-wage economy. I ask again: why is it so difficult for this Government to support their people and their country? I think it is because we know that at the heart of the Conservative Government is the ability to sound plausible, but the inability to be responsible.
As I close, I will focus on the lack of funding and national guidance to tackle the delays in and the unavailability of respiratory diagnosis. This has been a well-known issue since the pandemic. According to the organisation Asthma + Lung UK:
“Right now, thousands of people with lung conditions across the UK are suffering. They’re scared, alone and exhausted.”
Those are not my words, but its words. I call on the Health Secretary to set out funding and national guidance to tackle the current crisis in respiratory diagnosis. If people cannot work or receive proper education because they are off sick due to their loved ones’ or their own health condition, that is a barrier to their learning. When will the Government fix it?

Kim Leadbeater: It is a pleasure to speak on His Majesty’s first King’s Speech, but in communities such as the one I represent in Batley and Spen there is a growing feeling that Britain is no longer working. People are facing a struggle to get a GP appointment, hospital appointment or dentist appointment; they rarely see a police officer on the streets, despite feeling that crime and antisocial behaviour in their community are rising; they are waiting months or even years for an education, health and care plan for their child with special educational needs, seeing them struggle without the support they need and witnessing the impact on their mental health; they are sending their children to school knowing that teachers are overworked, overstretched and without the resources they need to give their child the best start in life; they are just accepting that home ownership is not a likely reality for the younger generation; or, at the end of the month, realising that their hard-earned pay or pension barely covers the increasing bills.
This is the broken Britain the Conservatives have presided over during 13 years of national decline. This King’s Speech could have started the hard work to get Britain’s future back. Instead, what we saw yesterday was a Government desperate to distract from their appalling record by engaging in dangerous and divisive culture wars and announcing yet more gimmicks. Rather than getting on with the serious job of governing, they announced a series of Bills that fail even to scratch the surface of the fundamental reform and renewal that our country needs.
In the area where I live and that I represent in Batley and Spen and across the Spen valley, this sense of broken Britain is clear to see, and I hear it from my constituents all the time. Over the last few months, we have seen the closure of Batley baths, and I and others are currently fighting hard to save Batley sports and tennis centre, Cleckheaton town hall and Claremont House dementia care home in Heckmondwike from closure. The loss of these precious public buildings and services would have a severe impact on local families and communities. For example, local leisure centres are not just places where residents go to exercise and keep physically healthy, although that is crucial if we are to reduce the long-term pressure on the NHS; they also provide opportunities to socialise and meet new people, combating loneliness and social isolation, and significantly improving mental health and wellbeing.
The loss of such facilities hits towns and villages hard and for many years, so we need to act quickly to save them, but since 2010 Kirklees Council has lost £1 billion in funding. If the Conservatives had kept Labour’s funding formula, Kirklees would currently be in surplus. Instead, Kirklees Council is forced to make impossible decisions about which public services it has to cut. The King’s Speech should have included a Bill to fix the broken funding formula for councils and to save vital local  services, but it did not. Instead, it leaves us in Batley and Spen facing the loss of facilities when we need them the most. After last year’s disastrous mini-Budget, our communities are paying the price for the Conservatives’ costly mistakes and mismanagement. It breaks my heart to see the impact of this on the community I love, that I am so incredibly proud to represent and that has stood by me in the most difficult of times. Unlike the current Home Secretary, I believe that strong leadership does not need to be devoid of compassion. It should be about bringing people and communities together, not pushing them apart, and that can take many forms locally, nationally and internationally.
Events in the middle east are at the forefront of many of our minds after the despicable terrorist attack on 7 October. The pain of the Jewish community around the world and the intense human suffering we see in Gaza at the moment are unbearable. Israeli hostages are being held in what must be terrifying conditions. Palestinian civilians, families and children—people who have nothing to do with the terrorists of Hamas—are being killed in their own homes. The international community must work night and day to stop the hostilities, to get desperately needed aid—food, water, medicines and fuel—into Gaza immediately and to call loudly and clearly for the release of all hostages.
We must also ensure that international law is upheld, particularly with regard to the principle of proportionality and the serious issues of forcible transfer and the taking of precautionary measures when it comes to protecting civilians. The actions of Hamas on 7 October are to be fully condemned, but the suffering of thousands of innocent civilians, many of whom were not even born when this conflict began, cannot be seen as collateral damage. As the Leader of the Opposition said last week, we absolutely defend Israel’s right to protect itself as a sovereign state, but that is not a blank cheque.
As hard as it feels, we must also stay resolute in the hope that there can be a prospect of a lasting peace in the future. I, for one, will work with colleagues and friends across the House—Jewish, Muslim, Christian or, like me, of no particular faith—to do everything I can to make the all-too-distant vision of a two-state solution more than just words repeated periodically in this place to make us all feel better, but an actual reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, because they have been let down for far too long.
It takes hard diplomacy, however, and a Government willing to bring people together to de-escalate tensions and provide the leadership and road map to discussions and a political settlement. The Government’s Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, which has been carried over into this Session of Parliament, does nothing to help that situation. It is a badly drafted and unworkable piece of legislation. It restricts councils and other public bodies from taking ethical investment and procurement decisions, and it singles out individual countries for different treatment. That cannot be the basis of a foreign policy that seeks to heal divisions and unite people, especially when the stakes are so high. In the light of recent events, I hope that the Government will reconsider their approach to that divisive Bill.
As we head towards a general election next year, people across Batley and Spen and the Spen valley will be looking for a Government who bring people together, who value and protect our communities and who are  willing to get on with the serious, hard work of governing. This King’s Speech does not offer the change we need. It offers more of the same to a country desperate for change.
We on the Opposition Benches have begun setting out how the next Labour Government will get on with the hard work involved in getting Britain’s future back, by giving back control to local communities and by rebuilding Britain as a country where opportunities spread across the United Kingdom, where a hard day’s work is valued again, where public services are cherished, where communities are enriched, where families have the security and prosperity they deserve, and where our children and young people can look to the future with hope. That is the change that the country and the people of Batley and Spen are crying out for, and that is the change that I know the next Labour Government will deliver.

Ruth Cadbury: I rise to speak in response to the Gracious Speech, and it is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater). There have been so many speeches from the Opposition Benches, and not very many from the Government Benches. Interestingly, some of those on the Government Benches were not particularly supportive of the Gracious Speech.
This King’s Speech fails to undo the damage of 13 long years of Conservative rule inflicted on this country and most of its people. There are any number of topics that I could have chosen to speak on to illustrate the damage that the Government have done to my constituents’ lives and hopes, and how the Gracious Speech has failed those constituents. However, I have time to cover only one topic: housing. The topic on the Order Paper for today’s debate is opportunity, but we know that opportunity is only possible if someone has a safe, secure and truly affordable home.
Politicians often use the term “housing crisis”, but we are seeing multiple housing crises. There is a crisis in the private rented sector, a crisis for leaseholders—in fact, a crisis for most mortgage holders—a crisis for those entangled with shared ownership, a crisis among housing associations, and a crisis for those with no home and no hope of having a home. There is also a crisis in home building, with far too few homes being built.
What do we see in the King’s Speech to tackle that multi-headed hydra on housing? A ban on no-fault evictions, first promised in 2019, and a weak, watered-down version of leasehold reform. The party of Macmillan, which once built hundreds of thousands of homes for our heroes, has been reduced to banning tents. The once-grand Conservative party has been reduced to declaring war on tent fabric. How does the housing crisis look to my constituents in Hounslow, Isleworth, Osterley, Brentford and Chiswick—those in what we euphemistically call “housing stress”?
I will start with homelessness and homeless families. All the schools in my constituency have a number of homeless children. Can the Education Secretary imagine the impact that has on children and their parents? First, being homeless means having no settled future; not knowing when children will start a new school, or whether they will need to be pulled out just as they have  made friends or move on before their next set of key exams. It means no space to do homework for those in overcrowded conditions. It means mothers living in one or two rooms in a big shared house wondering whether it is safe to leave the baby or the toddler alone while going to the toilet or to the kitchen. It means families with three or four children living in a one-bedroom flat or bunking up with friends or relatives, and children sleeping on sofas and sitting on buses for hours to get to and from school.
The housing crisis is a poison; one that is touching so many in west London who are priced out of even being able to rent a home, let alone buy one. Ending no-fault evictions will not help my constituents who do not have a tenancy, or those who do but whose landlord is selling up. How can one expect one’s children to grow up healthy when there is mould in every single corner of one’s home? How can someone look after their own wellbeing when the threat of eviction is hanging over their head and no landlord will rent them a home because they do not earn at least £60,000? The monthly rent for a one-bedroom flat in even the cheapest part of my constituency is £2,000—more than many of my constituents earn. No wonder home ownership is but a distant dream.
We need a multi-pronged approach with a proper programme of house building and a sweeping set of reforms to the current systems, especially in regard to leasehold—perhaps I should call it “fleecehold,” as many of my constituents do. It is a “feudal” practice—not my word, but that of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—that has left many of my constituents trapped in a serf-like position. He promised me in the Chamber that he would grasp the issue and used rather emotive language about “Applying a vice-like” pressure, yet it appears that his grip has soon weakened. I am sure that the developers and freeholders are relieved about that.
I will give just some examples of the impact on my constituents. One constituent had a 300% increase in building insurance costs despite no change in the building. Another constituent had service charges doubling in a block even though the lifts have been left broken and the intercom out of action. A constituent was unable to move with their partner and children to a bigger home because of a quirk of the Help to Buy system. I could go on. Those problems all stem from the huge flaws in the leasehold system—huge flaws that the Government’s modest set of tiny, limited changes does not start to address.
The shadow of the building safety crisis still hangs over many of my constituents. It has been six years since more than 70 people died in the Grenfell fire, and more than a decade since six people died in the Lakanal House fire. Constituents—mine and others across the country—are still waiting for vital building safety work to begin, despite it being promised months ago for their blocks. Many are not even eligible for support, because their building is less than 12 metres high.
The Government have once again failed leaseholders with the crumbs on offer. No more leasehold houses to be built—big deal. Developers should never have started building leasehold houses in the first place. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) has said what a Labour  Government will do: ban the sale of new leasehold flats as well as houses, and fix the mess in the leasehold system to ensure that existing leaseholders can move to commonhold. Commonhold must become the default for flats and render leasehold obsolete, and freehold must be the norm for new houses. Labour would enact the recommendation of the Law Commission’s report. We will do what this Government have failed to do.
The Government’s failure to fix our broken leasehold system is part of a much wider problem: a failure to understand the housing crisis across this country. Once again, the Prime Minister is out of touch with the crisis in the country. This King’s Speech should end the myth that the Conservatives are the party of home ownership. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, the Prime Minister caved in to the demands of his own Back Benchers and got rid of housing targets. He caved in to pressure from freeholders and dropped real leasehold reform. He caved in to the pressure from private landlords and watered down rental reform—a watered down Government, with a watered down King’s Speech.

Ruth Jones: I want to start by acknowledging the lifetime of service and commitment of Her late Majesty. I also acknowledge that, yesterday, we heard the first King’s Speech in more than 70 years. It was an historic day.
I am pleased to be speaking in this debate on such an important area—breaking down barriers, inspiring the next generation, and making our country fairer and more equal. That is why we are all here. It is certainly why I stood for election to this place back in April 2019. But, after the last 13 years, this Conservative Government have given up on governing. Rather than tearing down barriers to opportunity, they are putting them up—left, right and centre. They have left our country with stagnant growth, skyrocketing mortgages, crumbling schools and hospitals, a cost of living crisis, and the people of Newport West with very little faith in this UK Government.
The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has set out clearly the five missions that drive us. Of the five, three are especially relevant to Newport West. We will take back our streets from gangs, drug dealers and fly-tippers, with stronger policing, guaranteed patrols in town centres and more criminals put behind bars. We will break down barriers to opportunity so that every young person is ready for work and ready for life. We will switch on Great British Energy, a new British company giving us cheaper bills, new highly paid jobs and security from tyrants such as Putin. That is a plan to get our country on track, move us on and forward, and bring our country together.
When I spoke in the debate at the start of the last Session, I shared an email that I received from a resident of Newport West, and I want to mention part of it again. She said:
“We are in a position right now where we’re not coping. Our energy bills have risen by 54% and I am afraid that myself and many others will not be able to provide for our families.”
Nothing has changed since my constituent wrote to me, and nothing the Government have said this week will address those concerns or deliver the change that all my constituents need.
I heard from a carer in Newport West who earns just over the universal credit threshold. She said:
“I literally can’t afford to be sick. Statutory sick pay doesn’t cover my wages.”
In other words, in 2023, British workers have to make a choice: do they do the unthinkable and go to work while sick, or stay home and go hungry? The cause of their fear and concern, and the uncertainty facing so many people in Newport West and across the country, sit firmly at the door of this Prime Minister and his tired Conservative Government.
Thanks to the Tories, we find ourselves in a desperate situation, not just in all parts of the United Kingdom but here in this House too. The Tories closed up shop and sent us home early on nearly half of all sitting days in the last Session. I was elected to deliver, to get things done and to make life better for the people who sent me here, and I should be allowed to do that, but this Conservative Government are stopping us all from doing that. They are a zombie Government, paralysing Parliament, with Ministers unable to fill parliamentary time with substantive legislation to tackle the problems the country faces because, after 13 years in office, they have already failed.
The Prime Minister promised to halve inflation, yet our country is set to have the highest inflation of any G7 country this year. We see food prices soaring and petrol prices are once again on the rise. Inflation is set to be higher at the end of this year than forecast when the Prime Minister took office last year. Meanwhile, Labour analysis has found that mortgage holders are hundreds of pounds a month worse off compared with last year. The Tory mortgage bombshell is alive and well and causing misery to thousands of people across the UK.
The Prime Minister promised to grow the economy, yet the UK’s growth is set to be almost non-existent this year—the second lowest in the G7 and three times lower than the advanced economy average. The tax burden is at a record high, on the watch of every Tory MP sitting here in this House—or not, given the empty Government Benches. The next time they send us home early, let us remember that they are making the choice to avoid their responsibility to the people who elected us to this House.
The Prime Minister and his friends have let down the people of Newport West, of Wales and of our United Kingdom. The only way—the best way—to change course, to deliver for our people and to move forward is with a Labour Government, and the sooner the better.

Emma Hardy: I think the best word to describe what was in the King’s Speech is “inadequate”. It is clear that the Government have neither the energy nor the vision to deal with some of the difficulties facing so many people in our country. The disappointment of the speech adds to the general feeling of decline over the past 13 years. What the country really needs is change. That is the sense I get from each and every person I go out and speak to: it is time for a change. What they really need is a mission-led Labour Government focused on putting right the mistakes of the past 13 years.
We heard a perfect illustration of the Government’s governing by slogans from the Education Secretary at the Dispatch Box earlier when she talked about the idea of low-value degrees. She and other members of the Government often use that phrase, but they have utterly failed to define it. Every time they try, they realise that it is impossible to work out.
I am going to quote that well-known socialist Lord Willetts, who I believe still holds the Conservative Whip over in the House of Lords. We talked at the Treasury Committee about the impact of somebody’s degree on their life chances. I questioned him about evidence from the Resolution Foundation, which said that
“it is clear that much of what happens post-university is still determined by certain socio-economic characteristics chosen for us by chance at birth”.
It added that
“the IFS have utilised anonymised tax records and student loan data to show that”—
this is the bit that I hope the Education Secretary is listening to—
“even accounting for institution attended and subject studied, graduates from wealthier families earned more.”
That is the evidence that we have been given. It was collected from anonymised tax data, and it shows that even among people who do the same course at the same university, if someone comes from a wealthier background, they go on to earn more.
I put that to Lord Willetts—I am sure Members understand that he is not a well-known socialist—and he said, “That is absolutely fair.” He absolutely acknowledged that that is the case. He said:
“It is indeed the case that your background, even if you partly overcome it in your time at university, for any given degree, then has an impact in the labour market. The presumption”—
this is how he explained why some people do better at university than others, and why background is important—
“is that this is to do with all the networks and the social capital and the wider opportunities you bring to your hunting for jobs after you have finished your time or in your last year at university.”
So the background, the networks and the social capital of the parents had the greatest impact on how well someone did at university.
That is exemplified by the way in which this Government seem to operate, and their apparent view of teachers. Teachers do an amazing job, as do many of the people in universities, but they are not divorced from the environment in which they exist. Someone may go to university and have to work without that social capital or network. Another example given by Lord Willetts related to the unpaid internships that many employers continue to offer. If people are not able to take those up, they will not have the same opportunities as others.
Lord Willetts also gave some interesting evidence about degrees. He said that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tended to go for degree courses in which they were trained specifically for one occupation, because, he said, they were unable to take the risk. Those people do not want to study a subject such as history—which, I should point out, is the degree held by most top CEOs in the FTSE 100—because they sense the risk of not being employable. We already have a two-tier system in our university jobs market and in our degrees market. This attack that suggests that somehow universities are  responsible for the inequalities in our country that so many people face is ludicrous. Once again, the Government are pushing the blame on to someone else rather than accepting the fact that inequality has grown on their watch. If they really want to address the need for aspiration and social mobility, they need to consider addressing the background that so many people come from.

Robert Halfon: rose—

Emma Hardy: Of course I will always give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Robert Halfon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We used to serve on the Education Committee together, but I think that her argument is fundamentally wrong. If it is not wrong, why are there some incredible universities—I am thinking of Nottingham Trent University, the University of East London, which I visited last week, and Staffordshire University—with an extraordinary number of disadvantaged students, who do not have the networks and so on to which the hon. Lady referred, but many of whom get good jobs and good skills? If that is the case, it is not to do with networks; it is to do with good teaching at good universities.

Emma Hardy: I have the utmost respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I remember his love of Nottingham Trent University from when we served together on the Education Committee. There are some examples of universities doing great things to generate the correct networks for pupils, but the anonymised data, including the anonymised tax records, show that even when all that is taken into account—and of course there are excellent universities doing excellent work—what determines the jobs that people get when they leave university is their parents’ background. Those are the facts. The right hon. Gentleman can have alternative views, but he cannot have alternative facts.
In the context of schools and teachers and the difficulties that people may experience when they go to work, I now want to say a little about women with endometriosis. I have spoken about this many times in the Chamber. One in 10 women have the condition—it is as common as diabetes or asthma—but if I asked everyone in the Chamber about it today, I would probably find that many had never heard of it. It is a debilitating condition that affects a woman’s entire body, and is often linked to the menstrual cycle.
Many of the women I have spoken to who have the condition want to work and to do well. Indeed, many work as teaching assistants in schools or as teachers, because it is a female-dominated profession. Our survey established that half of them took time off work often or very often because of their condition, two fifths worried about losing their jobs because of their endometriosis and a third believed that they had missed out on promotion opportunities because of it, while 90% said that it had had an impact on their long-term financial situation, and one in six—remember, this condition is as common as diabetes or asthma—had had to give up work all together.
All that is required to keep these women in work are the usual reasonable adjustments and a consideration of the way in which work is structured. Some great cross-party work has been done on the menopause, and policies in the workplace seem to be changing, but I would have really liked to see in the King’s Speech a measure to address endometriosis and some of the other conditions affecting women.
Locally in my constituency, the Hull and East Yorkshire endometriosis group, which is full of amazing, formidable women, is working with the trade unions to create a rights charter and to encourage workplaces to look at how women with endometriosis are treated. But again, we did not see anything on rights at work in the King’s Speech. There was no employment Bill. There was no new deal for working people. There was nothing. Fundamentally, if we want to get the changes that people need—the genuine opportunities for all people from all backgrounds and the opportunities for women to continue in work—what we need is a Labour Government.

Mark Hendrick: What was known as the Queen’s Speech, now the King’s speech, was seen as an opportunity by the incumbent Government to lay out an ambitious policy agenda for the future. What we have seen from this King’s Speech, at what many might call the fag end of this Government’s time in office, is anything but ambitious. It is a collection of measures to try to cause division in the country. This Government do not want to fight the next election on their record in office, so they will fight it on what they say Labour will do. They will try to describe what is mainstream as extreme in order to promote their right-wing agenda as moderate—for example, by watering down our climate change commitments.
I will go even further and suggest that the Government want to placate even more of the Prime Minister’s right-wing colleagues by bringing about the notion of climate scepticism, as though our nation’s fears and worries about climate change are overblown and unfounded, when in fact the evidence of excessive flooding and heatwaves has appeared before our own people’s eyes. The use of the word “scepticism” is designed to conjure up a vision of the past, where Euroscepticism appeared to vanquish those who wished to remain in the European Union. Well, we have all seen how that played out. If climate scepticism catches on in the UK, it will do the same damage to our emissions targets and our reputation that Euroscepticism did to our trade, our economy and our reputation.
This Prime Minister, in order to try to distance himself from the previous Conservative incumbents in No. 10, is now trying to make out that he is a break from the past, where there was once cross-party consensus, through environmental measures and the likes of the cancellation of HS2. He is trying to dissociate himself from 13 years of Conservative Government failures, and to present himself as something new. The trick that he is trying to deploy is to bring forward measures that I would describe as counterintuitive. By playing down the need for strong environmental protective measures and the need for HS2 to go to Manchester, he is being different for difference’s sake. Climate science tells us that cleaner cars and well-insulated homes will save energy and help  the progress towards net zero. Economists do not just look at the cost to the nation of HS2; they look at the best estimates, which by the Government’s own analysis suggest that the completion of HS2 to Manchester would have brought £24 billion a year to the north’s economy and created 96,000 jobs. It would have improved capacity and connectivity and closed the productivity gap with London.
The Prime Minister thinks that the public will be fooled into thinking he is a different Prime Minister with a fresh agenda for the future and forget the fact that he has been in government since 2018. The crime—I nearly said “the crime minister”; it is a crime, some of the things that I think are going on on the Government Benches. The Prime Minister has been in the Cabinet for more than four years, was Chancellor of the Exchequer for two and has now been Prime Minister for a whole year, so it is not as though he is new to being in government.
Providing solutions to problems that do not exist is part of the Prime Minister’s agenda. Labour is not in government now, so it is irrelevant whether we would promote the annual issuing of North sea oil and gas licences. If we were in government and those licences had already been granted, as is likely to be the case, the decision would already have been taken. If those licences were not already granted, a Labour Government would have the choice and do what was best for the UK. In addition, the Government are fabricating policies that the country would get under a Labour Government, such as a meat tax, car sharing and seven different types of bins.
What have we seen in this King’s Speech? We have a sentencing Bill that will require whole-life sentences for the worst murderers. It would mean that rapists could not be released early and make shorter sentences more likely for lesser crimes. That sounds okay on the face of it, but it has more to do with the fact that prisons are full and the Government’s building programme cannot keep pace with convictions. I have a constituent who is a victim of rape and has had to wait five years for her case to come to court. There is more of a problem getting rapists into prison in the first place, with a conviction rate of only 2%, never mind letting them out early. There are many problems with the criminal justice system. Sentencing is a good headline, but it is not the answer to the system’s many woes.
This Government are running out of steam. They should call a general election tomorrow, because the country is crying out for change.

Bridget Phillipson: It is a pleasure and a privilege to close today’s debate for the Opposition on what we hope will be the last King’s Speech from a Conservative Government for many years, because the general election cannot come soon enough and the British people should have the opportunity to have their say.
Opening the debate today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) powerfully and movingly set out Labour’s case that this Government have let down our country and our people: our schools—crumbling; our skills system—broken; our housing market—failed. Our country cannot go on  like this. What we need is change, and the time for change is now. Crucially, the only party to deliver the change that we all need is today’s changed Labour party.
Today’s contributions from so many of my colleagues have spelled out the urgency of that change. We heard from many of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the challenges our country is facing right now and the actions a Labour Government would be taking on the side of working people. My right hon. Friends the Members for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) all set out very clearly the difference a Labour Government would make to our country.
One of the divides that such debates show so powerfully is between the core beliefs of our parties. Today it is distinctively Labour to believe that government can be and must be a force for good in people’s lives—not just administration but transformation, and not just keeping the show on the road but defining the road ahead—and only Labour understands that the purpose of government is to extend freedoms, to extend opportunities, for each of us and for all of us.
When we talk about opportunity, we mean that in its widest sense: educational opportunity for all of our children to be ready not just to live and work in our world but to understand and enjoy it. We want a country in which all our children, regardless of background, can achieve and thrive—economic opportunity, setting up our young people to achieve and succeed in the economy of today and tomorrow, with the chance not just to get by but to get on; social opportunity, so that families are not judged but supported, and so children and young people know that the future is for us all to shape together, not to face alone; cultural opportunity, to experience art, music, sport and drama, to get involved, to engage, to write, to participate, to pursue and to perform.
That is what we mean when we talk about opportunity: opportunity for each of us and for all of us. The change that Labour will bring is our determination to ensure that background is no barrier to opportunity, that excellence must be for everyone, and that high and rising standards for all our children and in all our schools are once again reality.
The speeches we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister and earlier from the Education Secretary were not about breaking down barriers to opportunity; they were missed opportunities. Let us think of all the issues that we might have heard about today. After all, the Department for Education’s own risk register, published back in the summer, lists six of them—six issues that the Government know they need to tackle, and on which they refuse to act. What of them? On industrial action, they have overseen some of the most sustained strikes in our schools for decades and have no plans to address the reasons for them. On education recovery after the pandemic, the Prime Minister said in his own words that he had “maxed out,” and the Education Secretary has given up.
On school building collapse, we heard not a word—although the Secretary of State has been keen to tell us that kids love nothing more than a Portakabin. On looked-after children, we heard not a word. On high-needs cost pressures on the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision system, we heard nothing at all. On cyber-security, we heard zero. On issue after issue, we have seen no evidence that the Government have learnt and no sign that they are ready. They are sleepwalking into disaster.
This goes far wider, as there are no plans for early years education; no plans to tackle the persistent absenteeism in our schools; no plans for a better and more effective school inspection and improvement system; no plans to tackle the growing problem of children who are missing altogether from our schools; no plans to deal with the exodus of qualified teachers from our schools and the growing crisis in recruitment; no plans for children’s social care or to tackle the crisis in provision facing children with special educational needs and disabilities; and no plans for fairer student finance. There is not a thing.
What did the Government give us in that very thin set of priorities? We got just a post-dated cheque on post-16 qualifications—a promise and no plan; an attack on our universities, on the young people who attend them, and on their hopes, dreams and aspirations. The Conservatives’ determination is never clearer and never sharper than when they see the chance to kick at the ambitions of their favourite target: other people’s children. Of course, it would be easy to stand here and say that the answer is simply fiscal, but it is not just about levels of spending—it is also about choices and priorities.
We heard some imaginative and creative storytelling from the Secretary of State about Labour’s record in government, but I am very proud of what we achieved. I saw with my own eyes and experienced the difference that our record in power made in my community and for a generation of children. Millions of children were lifted out of poverty; and we had high standards in our schools, better supported teachers, Sure Start, the education maintenance allowance and Building Schools for the Future.
That is a record of which we are very proud, and the Government have nothing to speak to on this. Thirteen years ago, the share of total public expenditure on education and social protection relating to families was 16.3%, but by last year it had fallen to just 11.6%. There has been an almost 30% drop in the share of Government spending on the next generation. This is a story not of tough decisions for long-term change, but of Conservative Members making easy choices for short-term gain. For 13 long years, they have chipped away at opportunity, Budget after Budget, with law after law, chasing headlines, not tackling issues, and taking chances away from our children, ravaging the opportunities of a generation. I would say that the Government have balanced the books on the backs of our children, but they have not even managed that. Taxes on working people are at the highest level for almost 70 years and public sector net debt has risen to almost 98% of GDP. Theirs is a record of failure and of shame.
Labour’s focus on opportunity will start with our youngest children. The Government’s childcare entitlement expansion comes with no plan for delivery and no  workforce to make it happen. Labour is determined that childcare is more than work choices for parents—it is life chances for children. That is why we have asked Sir David Bell, the former chief inspector of Ofsted and former permanent secretary in the Department for Education, to lead our work on setting out the standards and workforce we need for the early education our children deserve. We need high and rising standards, right from the start. We need the best start to every education and every life. We will bring early language interventions—some of the best evidenced of all of our educational approaches—into settings and classrooms across our country. We will bring high and rising standards for all our children, into all our schools. We will bring breakfast clubs to every primary school, in every corner of our country. We are determined to tackle the huge surge in mental ill-health among our children, with mental health support in every secondary school and mental health hubs in every community. We will address the growing challenge of persistent absenteeism, which is now on track to mean 2 million children regularly missing school by 2025—that is one in four of our children.
That is because today there is no greater failing by this Government than standing by, as more and more children miss school for days on end, term after term. They are a lost generation, missing from England’s schools. High and rising standards mean children must be in school for the education they deserve. It means a reset of the relationship between families, schools and government. I pay tribute to the Children’s Commissioner for England, for whom the epidemic of student absence from our schools has rightly been a concern that she has pressed with the Government, and to Sky News, which has been relentless in pursuing the issue.
We will review the curriculum so it is fit for the age we live in and the future we need, filled with the knowledge our children need to achieve and thrive, woven through with the speaking, listening and digital skills that our children need to succeed—high and rising standards in every classroom and every school.
We will use the money raised from ending the tax breaks that private schools enjoy to invest in 6,500 more teachers. We will ensure all new teachers are qualified. We will drive change in how Ofsted reports on our schools, ending one-word summaries and empowering parents to be partners in the push for better. And we will deliver proper careers guidance and worthwhile work experience for all our children, in every school—high and rising standards, through every year of school, so our children are ready for work and ready for life.
We will reform the failed apprenticeships levy into a growth and skills levy. We will devolve skills budgets to combined authorities to bring decisions closer to our local communities and economies. We will bring in a new national body, Skills England, to drive the change we need to see across Government and beyond. And we will reform student finance to bring fairness to a system that punishes new graduates, young workers, those starting a family and those delivering our public services—high and rising standards for all our young people throughout their education and their lives.
By-election after by-election, from Tamworth to Rutherglen, from Selby to Mid Bedfordshire, makes it clear that Britain is longing for change. Speech after speech from Ministers tells us they are out of ideas, out  of ambition and out of time. The choice, whenever it comes, in the months ahead, will be a simple one. Today, it is clearer than ever that only Labour can bring the change Britain needs. I call upon Government Members to end the wait, to put country before party and to deliver a general election now.

Nigel Evans: I encourage the Member leading the Adjournment debate to make themselves available, as I am sure we will be starting that debate in a matter of minutes, before 7 pm. That is not to encourage the Minister not to give us a full response.

Jacob Young: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). Both she and I entered the House of Commons aged just 26, grew up in working-class families in the north-east and think that she would be a better leader of the Labour party than the current one.
The title of the debate is “Breaking down barriers to opportunity”. It is testament to the progress that the country has made that myself, the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, are all from working-class families in northern towns and are now responding to the King’s Speech in the mother of all Parliaments. I think that is a good thing.
It is a huge honour to close the debate on His Majesty’s Gracious Speech, the first in over 70 years, and on the vital issues of unlocking the great potential of our young people and unleashing opportunities across all parts of our country, on behalf of the Government. As has been widely acknowledged during the debate, education is one of the most powerful levers we have to help achieve this Government’s defining mission of levelling up economic growth, improving people’s quality of life and restoring the pride in the places they call home.
I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), and who could forget the chair of the APPG for Shakespeare, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris).
Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, I started my career as an apprentice, before spending nine years in Teesside’s chemical industry, so I am especially passionate about ensuring that the next generation has the best possible choices and opportunities.
As the Prime Minister has said, for the next generation, and indeed for our country, that means taking difficult decisions for the long term, so that we lay the foundations for sustained success, enabling people everywhere to build a brighter future. And in that, as my right hon. Friend, the Education Secretary, has rightly said, we are building on a proud record.
Huge credit must go to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), for their ambition and vision back in 2010 for taking on the soft bigotry of those who believed that some are pre-destined for success while others are not.
None the less, we know that there is more to do to equip children starting school today to take up the jobs of tomorrow, starting with no more rip-off degrees, no more arbitrary targets for university, and no more assumptions that university is the only route to success. Instead, we are giving every generation real choices and a commitment to a real return on their investment.

Emma Hardy: Will the Minister give way?

Jacob Young: The hon. Lady has spoken many times in this debate, so I think I shall make some progress.

Emma Hardy: rose—

Jacob Young: We are giving a commitment to a real return on their investment, their hard work, their hard cash by delivering more high-quality technical education—

Emma Hardy: Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Evans: If the Minister was going to give way, I am sure that he would give an indication that he wishes to do so.

Jacob Young: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, we are giving every generation real choices and a commitment to a real return on their investment, their hard work and their hard cash by delivering more high quality technical education than any other Government, through T-levels, Higher Technical Qualifications and apprenticeships. We are also delivering for adults looking to learn new skills through skills bootcamps, the Lifelong Learning Entitlement—bringing universities, colleges and businesses together through Institutes of Technology. We are demanding excellence all round for academic and technical routes.
Our family hubs and “Strong Start for Life” programmes will also provide wide-ranging support that joins up services, including targeted help during those first critical days of a child’s life, giving the next generation the best possible start in life.
Just as we are making sure that all children and young people are set up to succeed, so we are making sure that every part of our country is set up for success. The White Paper that preceded our great Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which I am delighted to say is now on the statute book, recognised a fundamental truth: that while talent is spread equally across the UK, opportunity is not. Although our country is such a success story, not everyone shares equally in that success. We are putting that right by shifting opportunity and power decisively towards working people and their families. We will empower local leaders and invest billions to: create high-skilled, well-paid jobs; improve transport; improve health outcomes; protect community spaces; invest in research and innovation; and increase pride and belonging. Since taking on the job of Minister in  the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, I have seen what a difference this is making in places such as Middlesbrough, where I grew up, Keighley, Grimsby and Hull, because, for prosperity to be shared, we must first attract the good jobs that our towns and regions need by creating the right environment for businesses to operate in.
A wind farm manufacturer who is looking at where to base their next production facility needs a reason to pick Redcar or Hull over Antwerp or Rotterdam. Only by investing in the full package of incentives—from skills to infrastructure, business environment to quality of life—can we make this happen. That is exactly what we are doing through the UK’s network of freeports, which offers a comprehensive package of measures, comprising tax reliefs, customs, business rates retention, planning, regeneration, innovation and trade and investment support. They also create opportunities in left-behind communities. I am thinking of my own constituency of Redcar and Cleveland and the Teesside freeport where BP is investing in carbon capture and storage. It has partnered with Redcar and Cleveland College to provide scholarships for young people to train as clean energy technicians. We are providing the skills that are preparing people for the jobs of the future, so that they can embrace the opportunities that are being created by this Government. But that is not all. We have listened to those who feel that their communities have been left behind. Through our £1.1 billion long-term plan for towns, we are putting power and flexible funding in the hands of local people, so that they can invest in what is most important to them. Towns such as Mansfield, Great Yarmouth, Blyth, Oldham, Grimsby, Merthyr Tydfil are just some of the 55 communities that will receive this support.
As this Government invest in creating opportunity and driving aspiration across our Union, we are channelling the investment that our towns and regions need to succeed, led by local leaders who know their communities best. In 2010, Greater London was the only area in England with devolved powers. We want more to follow,  bringing decision making closer to the people it affects. Now, under this Government, we have 10 areas with implemented mayoral devolution deals, and five deals in the process of implementation.
Devolving education and skills is at the heart of our devolution framework, because unless there are good schools with high standards, and institutions offering qualifications that employers value, prosperity cannot be shared across all communities. When we think about disadvantage, all of us will be acutely aware that disadvantaged children have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. We are determined to support them to catch up and reach their potential, which is why we have invested in education recovery programmes such as the recovery premium, the national tutoring programme and the 16-19 tuition fund.
Unlike the Labour party, we will never accept that family background or geography should ever dictate destiny. Long before there was a levelling-up Minister, levelling up was exactly what we had been doing over the past 13 years in our schools, in our world-class universities, on skills and through apprenticeships, reversing a decade of decline, low expectations and low ambition. The rewards that we are reaping now are very real. We have better schools than ever before, with schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country producing some of the best results. More young people from state schools are going to our best universities. Our nine and 10-year-olds are topping the league for reading in the west. We have the best universities in Europe.
While others talk the talk, we walk the walk, and just as we have succeeded in turning the tide in education and skills, so we will succeed in turning the tide for people and places long taken for granted by the Labour party. As we have seen from today’s debate, levelling up growth, opportunity, prosperity, pride and belonging for everyone in all parts of our country to contribute to and share in is a mission for us all—but there is only one party that can be trusted to deliver.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Football Regulation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Matt Rodda: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about football regulation and about Reading football club in tonight’s Adjournment debate. Before I start, I will say a few words of thanks to Reading fans and to all those campaigning to secure the future of football clubs around the country. I also thank the Minister for his support; I appreciate that he is standing in for a colleague at the last minute. I particularly thank the Reading fans who set up the Sell Before We Dai campaign, which is calling on the current owner to sell the club to a new, more responsible owner. I would like to mention Ian Morton, who is here tonight, Eleanor Flood and many others. I also thank our supporters trust, and many other fans groups.

Samantha Dixon: As a supporter-run club, Chester football club has not-going-into-debt written into its constitution. For them, it means that they will never again lose the club to the whim of feckless owners. Chester FC competes against clubs that do not have that safeguard and is therefore always at a competitive disadvantage because it is committed to a sustainable future for the club. Football regulation must mean that that is tackled. Does my hon. Friend agree that meaningful regulation, and financial incentives to promote good governance with supporter representation at its heart, has to be the way forward, from the premiership to the grassroots?

Matt Rodda: I thank my hon. Friend; of course, the interests of fans and clubs must come first.

Anna Firth: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on such an important topic. Southend United football club is the heart of the new city of Southend, but it has had a terrible time and is currently under new ownership. Will he join me in welcoming the football governance Bill in yesterday’s King’s Speech, which we hope will pave the way to protect clubs such as Southend United for generations to come?

Matt Rodda: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. In fact, the point of my speech is not only to thank the Minister for that Bill, but to probe and ask questions about it.

Jim Shannon: We are going for a hat-trick of interventions, one after the other. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. It is critical not only for those here, but for many others who are unfortunately not able to make it. I agree with the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) that the football governance Bill appearing in the King’s Speech is a significant step forward. In Strangford, we have many fantastic local clubs, including Ards football club in the major town of Newtownards. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a football regulator for finance must apply to all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and especially to support small, local clubs so they can reach their full potential?  This is not just about Reading or Southend; it is about all of us in this great United Kingdom, if we do the thing right.

Matt Rodda: I thank the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the action the Government are proposing is brought forward and has the widest possible impact across the UK.
I take this opportunity to thank the thousands of local fans who have shown their support for a change of ownership of Reading FC, including the 1,400 people who joined a march from our town centre to the stadium a few days ago. It was an incredible show of support, and one that led to the unexpected closure of the A33 due to the huge numbers who took part. I thank all the drivers on the other side of the road—a two-lane trunk road—who hooted in support and cheered us on. I thank Reading FC legend Dave Kitson for leading the march and for his support for both the club and the campaign.
I thank our local council, including the council’s leader, Jason Brock, Councillor John Ennis, who has been a Reading fan since 1975, Councillor Adele Barnett-Ward and others. I thank John in particular, because he took part in a previous march in 1983 against Robert Maxwell’s ill-thought-through plan to merge Reading with Oxford United. I should add that John has been our lead councillor for transport for just four months and already he has shut a major road, which is not something that many councillors get to do.
I also thank my fellow Berkshire MPs, particularly the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). Sadly, the hon. Member for Bracknell cannot attend the debate due to illness, but he is a fan and hugely enjoyed the march. Despite the local political differences, he marched next to John and other seasoned campaigners and marchers from the Labour council—although, funnily enough, he seemed to feel more at home when the fans started chanting “Blue Army” as we walked down the road. I thank him, the Minister and colleagues from across the House for their support.
I turn now to the substance of the debate. It is clear to us all that there is an ownership problem in English football. I will use the debate to explain the terrible impact of that ownership problem on Reading and, by implication, on many clubs across the country, and to ask the Minister to reassure fans, players, staff and local communities. As I said earlier, I welcome the Government’s announcement that they plan to bring forward a Bill to regulate football. That is an important step.
I call on the Government to live up to that promise. Ministers must ensure that the Bill includes proper powers for the regulator and, crucially, that there is enough parliamentary time for the Bill in the last months before a general election. Above all, the Government need to show us that they have the determination to press forward with what they have promised. I know my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is willing to work with them, as are we MPs, fans and the whole football community. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government are serious and will commit to them taking this vital work forward as a matter of urgency.
I will turn now to Reading football club. To put it clearly and simply, as loyal fans did on the march last week, we want our Reading back. The story of what is  happening to our wonderful club is quite simply heartbreaking. It is terrible, and I could use much less parliamentary language—as was occasionally heard as we marched down the A33. The situation we face stands in stark contrast to the history and traditions of our great club.
Reading was founded in 1871, and it is one of the oldest clubs in English football. The fans, the players of the men’s and women’s teams, and the staff have all been badly let down. In men’s football, Reading has been a championship club, knocking on the doors of the premier league. It has enjoyed three seasons in the top flight. In fact, we were one place outside getting into Europe at the end of our first premier league season, in 2006-07. Fans have vivid memories of the nineties, the noughties and our most recent time in the premier league 10 years ago—the proudest possession of one of my children is a ball signed by the whole team from that heady time—under the wise leadership of brilliant managers such as Steve Coppell, who guided gifted players, many of whom were local and came up through the club’s academy, and the committed support of the then owner, Sir John Madejski, whom I thank for his wise stewardship of the club.
The club and the wider football community used to talk about “the Reading way”: developing and motivating players at a local family club, and achieving far more than others would have thought possible. That includes—I particularly like saying this—beating Watford 4-1 to win the Simod cup at Wembley; winning the championship a number of times, most recently in 2011; knocking on the door of the premier league in successive play-offs; and great FA cup runs, including sadly losing to Arsenal in the semi-final in 2015.
Crucially, the women’s team were also punching above their weight, and were a real success story. Until recently, they were playing in the women’s super league thanks to brilliant players and management, and were on the brink of doing something amazing. Sadly, that run of success has now ended.
The club was sold in 2013, and a succession of owners have presided over a worsening situation. Unfortunately, our men’s team is now languishing at the bottom of league one, through no fault of their own—16 points have been deducted from the club in the last few months for an array of financial mismanagement by the current owner, Chinese businessman Dai Yongge, not for anything that has happened on the pitch. That financial mismanagement includes Mr Yongge failing to pay wages and national insurance. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had lodged winding-up petitions before the NI was paid. Mr Yongge’s term as owner started well, with investment in players and the training ground, but sadly he seemed to lose interest. This may be a familiar story to others who follow the history of many of our clubs.
The effect of those points deductions has been absolutely appalling. Reading’s men’s team was relegated from the championship to league one at the end of last season, and further points deductions have left us at the very bottom of that league. To make matters worse, it now looks as if the club will be relegated again at the end of this season. That would leave us playing in league two. The owner has also pulled the funding for the women’s  team, which made them unsustainable as a professional outfit—sadly, the players are no longer fully professional—and they too have been relegated.
Let me say a brief word about players, staff and fans. Quite simply, they are doing a determined job to remain positive in an extremely difficult and challenging situation that is not of their making. We are all extremely proud of them, and I pay tribute to them all. Young, less experienced players—the men’s team are the youngest in the league—who in some cases should still be in the academy or on the bench, are playing with grit and determination despite everything that has been thrown against them. Fans with families and busy jobs have come together to fight for our club in a community campaign that has made the national news. We are  all very proud of them, and I want to say: “Come on  you R’s!”

Clive Betts: I apologise for being late to the debate—I was caught out by the earlier start. My hon. Friend is making a good point about the way in which football is often run by individuals who can, in the end, bring a whole club and its community down because of the way the club is managed. At Sheffield Wednesday, Dejphon Chansiri has put a lot of money into the club—great—but he has been saying recently that he may stop the funding, which is obviously a considerable threat. In the end, clubs are not just about the person who owns them, or the chairmen; they are about fans. Clubs belong to them, and they should have the right to be consulted right the way through on all those issues. We hope that the regulator, when it comes in, will have the powers to do precisely that.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will address later in my speech. I hope the Minister will offer further detail about what he proposes, and I urge him to use his speech to give us some hope, some cheer, some optimism, and some fire in our bellies to help fight for the future of our beloved club.
The Government have announced a Bill to introduce a football regulator, which is welcome. That Bill has the potential to lead to real change in English football, but sadly it is not clear how far the Government will respond to fans’ concerns, and indeed to those of the football authorities. We are all concerned about owners, such as Dai Yongge, who seem to swoop in, hope to make money, and then lose interest if they are not successful. We are at a very early stage with the Bill, so I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us about the thrust of that Bill. I ask him to provide some detail on a number of key points.
For example, can the Minister spell out what the Government hope the Bill will achieve? Can he be clear about the powers he is considering for the regulator, and will he reassure fans that they will actually have a say? Will he also put an end to clubs being punished for the actions of irresponsible owners? In short, will he commit to doing what it takes to make sure that no more clubs and no more fans have to suffer what we have had to suffer?
Dai Yongge has announced that he plans to sell Reading. He made that announcement in October, and so far there appear to be three bidders who have shown an interest in the club. That means that the sale could go through before the Bill is passed, so is the Minister able to reassure me about the club’s immediate future? If the  sale does go ahead, will he commit to Reading becoming a pilot for new regulation to protect the club, and indeed to other measures that may be necessary to offer support?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you once again for allowing me to have this debate tonight, and I thank Members who have intervened on me. Most of all, I thank Reading fans and our whole community. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

John Whittingdale: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) on securing this debate. As he mentioned at the start of his remarks, it was the intention of the Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), to respond to the debate, but he has had to return to his constituency urgently for reasons that I think colleagues will fully understand.
In his remarks, the hon. Gentleman highlighted the deep concern that he and many of the fans he represents have expressed regarding football ownership. I pay tribute to his commitment, and to theirs; having listened to his description, we understand how difficult it must have been for those fans over the past few years. We are very much aware of the passion and interest that many hon. Members feel about the long-term sustainability and governance of English football, and their commitment to their local clubs. I thank the hon. Members for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for their contributions to this debate. In particular, as a Member of Parliament for Essex, I am very much aware of the difficulties faced by Southend United, and my hon. Friend has been a fantastic champion for the fans of that club.
The presence of those hon. Members in this debate demonstrates how important football clubs are to the lives of people in this country. In 2011, when I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—quite a considerable time ago now—we conducted an inquiry into football governance. It is somewhat depressing that, 12 years later, we are still debating many of the same issues. However, I hope that the inclusion of the football governance Bill in the King’s Speech yesterday will reassure the hon. Member for Reading East and others that this Government are intent on delivering and safeguarding the future of football clubs for the benefit of communities and fans.
The hon. Gentleman has talked about his own local club, steeped in the fabric of its community. It has been relegated, suffered sporting sanctions and faced financial penalties because of reckless decisions made by owners and terrible mismanagement. We have also heard about poor and non-existent governance practices, with fans being prevented from influencing key decisions that affect them and having to petition local councils, in some cases to protect stadiums. All such incidents threaten the long-term health and sustainability of all clubs, not just Reading.
We have heard about how English football clubs make significant contributions, and also about what happens when the community is let down by irresponsible  owners in charge of football clubs. No employee, be they a player or, indeed, someone in the club shop, should fear not being paid. It is the local communities and fans that are the lifeblood of these clubs, and they bear the brunt and fallout of bad ownership decisions. They see where the structures are not working for the good of the game, and they can articulate most clearly how these are set right.
My colleagues in the ministerial team have prioritised engaging with fans and listening to their concerns, and I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for leading the fan-led review of football governance. This has been of immense value in developing the White Paper and during the period of the consultation we held earlier this year. I would like to thank the Football Supporters Association for its support; its contribution has been extremely valuable.
Too many clubs have been brought to the brink with unsuitable owners taking over, stripping them of their assets and refusing to fund them any more. We are committed to breaking this cycle of inappropriate ownership, financial instability and poor governance practices. That is why the inclusion of the Bill in yesterday’s King’s Speech is so important. The Bill will establish an independent football regulator, which will put fans back at the heart of football and help to deliver a sustainable future for all clubs. It will strengthen the governance and financial resilience of football clubs to protect the national game and clubs linked with communities and fans. Crucially, the regulator will address systemic financial issues in football, while providing the certainty and sustainability required to drive future investment and growth. This will ensure that English football remains the global success story and tackles the harms that exist.
The Bill will give fans more of a voice in the running of their clubs by setting a minimum standard of fan engagement. Clubs will need to meet this, and will be required to comply with the FA on its new rules for club heritage. It will give fans a veto over changes to the badge and home shirt colours, in addition to the strong existing protections for club names. Most clubs have a strong relationship with their fans and consciously engage them in decisions about club heritage, but not all do. For instance, fans of Cardiff City and Hull City will understand the importance of these measures after they recently had to battle to bring back or to keep their club’s colours and badge. Likewise, the new system will create strengthened owners and directors tests to make sure a club’s custodians—their owners and directors—are suitable.

Clive Betts: I think the consultation with fans is absolutely at the heart of this. It was at the heart of the fan-led review, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for that. For the fans, it will be really important that the legislation specifies how fans groups will be appointed as part of the consultation, and it should not be left to the owners of clubs to decide which fans they want to talk to and which they do not, because that is at the heart of the current problems in many clubs.

John Whittingdale: rose—

Nigel Evans: I just remind the Minister that at 7 o’clock the Whip will once more move the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

John Whittingdale: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I do understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). Certainly, we would not wish to have a system in which the directors decided who they do and do not wish to talk to. It will be part of the licensing requirements that fans are involved. I am sure we will wish to explore that further during the passage of the Bill, but it is certainly the intention that that is one of the conditions for licensing.
We have seen other examples of fans fighting back against their owners to save their clubs at Blackpool, Charlton Athletic and, as we have heard tonight, Reading. That should not have had to happen.

Matt Rodda: Does the Minister agree that part of the issue here is about the test for ownership? It was interesting in Reading’s case that Dai Yongge was refused as a potential owner for Hull City when it was in the premiership —unlike Reading, which was in the championship at the time. The English Football League allowed him to become the owner of Reading. There is an issue there and a question about the fit and proper test for owners.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

John Whittingdale: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern on that point, particularly given the record of the owner of his particular club. The Bill will insert as one of the duties of the new football regulator the requirement to conduct an owners and directors test, to make sure that clubs and fans are protected from irresponsible owners. I am sure that we will want to explore that matter in greater detail when the Bill comes to be debated in this House.
The Bill will also require clubs to seek the regulator’s approval for any sale or relocation of the stadium and to demonstrate how they have consulted their fans as part of that. To give another example, at Derby County we saw the issues caused by the decision to sell the club stadium to a separate company owned by the club’s owner. More recently, as the hon. Gentleman has graphically described, we have seen fans at Reading petition the council to list the ground as an asset of community value, to make sure that it cannot be sold quickly and   without warning by the current owner. The stadium that the club plays in not only has significant value to fans, but can be a club’s most valuable asset.
In addition, the regulator will prevent clubs from joining breakaway leagues. As Members will be aware, in 2021 fans were faced with the prospect of a breakaway European super league that was fundamentally uncompetitive and threatened to undermine the footballing pyramid. Fans will no longer face the prospect of seeing their club sign up to such ill-thought-out proposals. Ultimately, we want a thriving footballing pyramid and more money must flow through the game to make that happen.
On financial distribution, it remains our firm belief that the best solution is a football-led solution, but if one is not found, the regulator will have a backstop power to intervene and force a solution. I hope a resolution on that point will be found soon, and I urge both sides to reach a deal as soon as possible. It is in the game’s interests to avoid the risk of further financial uncertainty.
In short, through this legislation we are protecting the fundamentals of the game we love while ensuring a more sustainable future with fans at its heart for generations to come. Meanwhile, alongside the introduction of legislation, the Government will take the time to explore the extent to which preparatory work can be done ahead of the regulator being established in law.
I fully recognise the plight of Reading football club, as the hon. Gentleman described, and I understand his wish that measures should be brought in as soon as possible. I am afraid that I cannot commit to a pilot at this stage, but I can tell him that the experience of Reading FC and other clubs will continue to inform policy development and decisions about how the regulator is set up. Likewise, any sale that takes place in advance of the regulator is a matter for the football authorities’ existing rules and checks on owners and directors, but I urge hon. Members who are concerned on that point to encourage clubs and their leaderships to engage with the team in the Department as we take the policy forward.
If the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns, I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, will be happy to talk to him further. I thank him for bringing the matter before the House. I think we all look forward to the introduction of the Bill and the establishment of a regulator in due course. I certainly share his view that that needs to happen quickly, and before a general election.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.